Kelly Rutherford’s ex, Daniel Giersch, awarded custody, kids stay in Monaco

After years of a contentious, drawn out custody battle, Kelly Rutherford has lost custody of her two children, Hermes, nine, and Helena, six. In a ruling which was widely expected, a court in Monaco has awarded full custody to her ex, German born Daniel Giersch. Hermes and Helena have lived with their father and their paternal grandparents in Monaco since 2012. Rutherford can visit her children, but only by traveling to France and only for half of their school breaks. Up until this summer, they were allowed to visit their mother in America, in New York city where she lives, for several weeks. However Kelly refused to send the children back as scheduled, essentially committing parental abduction, and was ordered by a NY court to return them to Monaco immediately. This came after years of Kelly trash-talking Daniel to the press, claiming that rulings by a foreign court didn’t apply to her, and threatening to keep the children against court orders. Throughout it all, Giersch and his legal team remained very tight lipped, only issuing occasional statements and continuing to promote Kelly’s time with the children.

So it’s in no way surprising that Monaco has stripped Kelly of custody as even outlets that were biased in her favor predicted this outcome. Here’s more, thanks to The Daily Mail:

Kelly Rutherford has lost custody of her two children with a Monaco judge making a final decision on the lengthy legal case that has seen her locked in litigation with her ex-husband for more than six years.

In devastating court documents seen by Daily Mail Online the actress’s worst fears have been realized as the Monaco judge has granted full custody to her German ex-husband, Daniel Giersch, 41, who will continue to live with the children in Monaco.

The court order stipulates that the parents must make decisions concerning nine-year-old Hermes’s and six-year-old Helena’s ‘health, schooling, religious education and any change of residence,’ jointly. But the children will live with their father with Kelly, 47, only permitted to ‘exercise her visiting and accommodation rights exclusively in France and Monaco.’

They will spend half of Christmas, spring and summer vacations with their father and half with their mother, with their father receiving the lion’s share of contact as the children will not only live with him but spend all of All Saints and the winter with him.

The former Gossip Girl actress will receive a total of 3000 euros ($3,281) a month in maintenance.

It is the latest, and final, blow for the actress who has fought to regain custody of her children since losing them in a 2012 judgment that she described at the time as ‘shocking, illegal and abusive.’

‘It was,’ she said, ‘the most cruel act against a child I have ever witnessed in my entire life.’

Kelly and her ex-husband have been embroiled in a vicious battle since before their divorce was finalized in 2009 when she was pregnant with Helena. The couple had married just three years earlier shortly before the birth of their son, Hermes.

The process has been so taxing on her finances that she was forced to file for bankruptcy in May 2013 after years of litigation fees reportedly totaling around $1.4million…

Now Kelly’s behavior has been heavily criticized with the Monaco court finding that ‘the mother has consistently retained the children’s passports that made it difficult for him [the father] since he could not come and go in their company, [Giersch has ongoing visa issues] nor similarly prove their identity, and she also objected to the issuing of German passports.’

[From The Daily Mail]

The Daily Mail has more from the ruling, including the fact that Rutherford never vaccinated the kids and that Giersch was seeking to have them immunized. Rutherford won a small victory in this case. Giersch wanted her to put aside any money she received for “exposure of her children in the media” into an account in their names. I assume that the request was denied because that’s difficult to quantify, and Kelly’s whole career the past few years has revolved around publicizing this case.

Rutherford is still getting a whopping €3,000 a month maintenance despite the fact that she lost custody. She’s making 36,000 Euro a year so she can afford to travel to see her kids. Given how outspoken she was, and how much smack she was talking the past few months, I get the impression that this is the outcome she wanted. I don’t think Kelly wanted custody of her kids, she wanted the press to make her into a martyr. It worked in many cases. Can you imagine how this would have gone if a father behaved the way she has the past few years?

Kelly Rutherford Will Never Be Able To Bring Her Children To The US - FILE PHOTOS

"Suffragette" New York Premiere

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

270 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s ex, Daniel Giersch, awarded custody, kids stay in Monaco”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. bellenola says:

    Good. The end.

    • Kelly says:

      Sadly, I don’t think she will let it be the end.

      • funcakes says:

        She’s setting up an appeal as we speak.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        This would be a hard case to win on appeal. The facts are pretty clear.

      • DrM says:

        I apologise for this long a** post. Ms Rutherford will not win this one, or the next one or the next one. I know this situation first hand. I lost custody of my youngest children when my husband left me unexpectedly (completely) when I went overseas to do my PhD (I was going to split my time between my home country and the country I was doing my PhD in – we had worked it all out, it had been in the offing for two years, discussed, planned etc. And I was on full scholarship I did not expect my husband to foot any of the bills for my study). I went to do my first 5 months of study and found out that he was having an affair with one of my best friends. He then promptly went to court said I abandoned them and the fight was on. All while I was trying to keep myself from dying from the pain of it, teach university and do a PhD. The judge said he knew I hadn’t abandoned anyone and that my then husband was a complete tosser. But given international custody laws which state that children cannot be removed from their land of birth or habitual domicile without the permission of both parents my kids couldn’t come live with me in the country I was doing my PhD in as he refused to give me permission. My ex husband said openly he did NOT want to pay child support so he wasn’t allowing them to live with me. It was utterly, utterly awful. I lost my home, saw my children sporadically for 5 years and was in huge pain for a very long time. I ACCEPTED the decision the court had made because I believed to drag it out any more would hurt my children more in the long run. And it was the hardest thing I EVER did.

        A year after it was finally settled he moved his partner in who was terrible to the kids and they ended up staying with me (I had visitation and they didn’t go back to their home country all done legally), after a protracted period of negotiations and huge cost ($100,000 +) in legal fees that we are still paying off. Best money I ever spent. And my boys are doing so well, my second husband has raised them with me as his own for the last 8 years and done a fabulous job. I will be forever grateful. And we are happy, personally and as individuals. I feel very, very lucky. It kind of puts your life in perspective. You quit tripping out about the little things like possessions, accumulating more STUFF etc lol.

        What I’m trying to say is that sometimes these decisions go against what you might want as a parent but you HAVE to put the children first. Six years of fighting in court is long enough. Ms Rutherford has lost and she has created much of the problem with her own behavior towards her ex husband and her flouting of state, federal and international child custody law and convention. Let the kids grow up in peace. That is a generous support allowance and with her career she should be able to travel and see the children with that money without difficulty.

      • qwerty says:

        Damn, what a ride. Congrats on sorting your life out, you ex sounds like a terrible husband AND father.

      • LAK says:

        DrM: what Qwerty said!!!

        so pleased it all worked out for you.

    • Kylie says:

      It is good that kids will rarely get to see their mom?

      • Elliott says:

        They will see her if she doesn’t have anything better to do exactly the same as if they were being raised by nannies and a busy single mom Kelly in the US. The difference is that they live with a full time father.

      • bellenola says:

        No, that’s very sad indeed. But she certainly comes cross as the most selfish type of person and they didn’t take custody away from her for nothing.

        BTW, I am an American who shares custody of a child with a British father. It isn’t easy but we put our son first, always.

      • doofus says:

        if the mother is a toxic presence/influence in their lives and puts her own vengeance against their father above their well-being, then yes, it’s good that they don’t see her too often. maybe she’ll learn to appreciate what she has and realize that they come first.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Kyle

        Even before this ruling, she had all four seasons’ worth of school holiday visits with them, including them spending half of summer vacations in the US with her, and she’s said that she’s visited them at least 80 times. So it’s never been ‘rare’ that she gets to see them.

        Daniel has even put money in a fund to pay for her plane tickets, and he’s paid for her stays and car service. She even brought her boyfriend to stay in the three-bedroom house Daniel got for her use during her visits. And on at least one of her visits, she used the time to go to the Cannes Film Festival.

        Also, Daniel makes sure the kids Skype with her (on a daily basis, iirc), and which she has taken advantage of by crying on camera and trying to make the kids feel bad about being with their dad and not her.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        This mom? Yes. She has already proven herself to be emotionally and mentally dangerous to the kids. She’s already tried to interfere with their relationship with their father and turn them against him. She has proven herself to be emotionally unstable and unpredictable. Sad for the kids, but they are better off without her in their life. She will only mess them up more than they might already be.

      • meh says:

        When your mother is a narcissist who cares more about hurting your father, than you and your siblings’ wellbeing, yes. Yes it is good not to see her.

      • Erinn says:

        Yes. In this case, yes.

        She’s used them as pawns, she’s kidnapped them, and there’s no way she hasn’t been badmouthing her ex to them. Once you have children with someone – you have to be at least a sane person regarding the other parent. If you can’t do that, and you’re turning your kids against the father for no reason, then you’re brainwashing them. And no, I don’t think someone who uses that tactic should have the same kind of access to their children as someone who is being a cooperative co-parent. She’s piling her emotional issues onto her kids, and it’s going to hurt them, not the father.

    • LAK says:

      definitely not the end. she’s already filed an appeal against this decision.

      • bellenola says:

        Because, of course. What was I thinking?

      • FLORC says:

        She can appeal and trash the court systems all she likes. It’s not helping her case. And it’s not helping her children that finally have some stability.

        And Kelly have proven she can travel and thrive in Monaco. She and her lawyer broke down the argument to her children came from her and she is an American citizen so only the mother who is an American can have final say no matter what.

        I sort of hate her twisted logic. It just wasn’t about the kids.

      • Sabrine says:

        She’s wasting her time and money. She will not win on appeal. They can see how she had the father’s Visa pulled by lying. I do feel sorry for her in a way but on the other hand she has been her own worst enemy. Her only choice now is to fly over and see them. If she had co-operated from the beginning, things would be a lot different now.

    • Darkladi says:

      She’s such an asshole that my first thought was HA HA. I am terrible Trump-like person.

      • Laura says:

        You are not alone. That was my first thought too. She brought this on her deluded self. I just hope the kids can grow up as sane as possible with her as their mom.

      • SnarkySnarkers says:

        From everything I’ve read about her with this custody battle, her behavior shows clear signs of borderline personality disorder. I think the kids will be much better off and have a much more stable homelife living with their father.

      • qwerty says:

        Sealt with a borderline biatch, have to agree.

  2. Jem says:

    Kelly media meltdown in 3,2,1….

    • bros says:

      For all the people thinking this is a good decision, you need to read the Vanity Fair piece on this whole ordeal. I was previously very unsympathetic to Kelly, but after reading it, I have a much wider take on it all. It’s excellent and worth reading.

      the whole thing is a complete tragedy all around.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ bros

        Read it. Too bad it doesn’t rely on much of the facts in the custody case.

        Google: Statement of Decision Kelly Rutherford PDF

        It also doesn’t mention much of what she’s done after that court decision that has been detrimental to her side of the case.

        Also, consider that every judge in every court in every major decision on this case has ruled against her – in CA, NY, the Federal Court, and now Monaco. There are A LOT of reasons why it turned out like this and most, if not all, is due to Kelly’s choices.

      • bros says:

        I think the main point I took away from the piece was that the courts seemed to be deciding things mainly based on her interactions with her ex and not what was best for her kids/whether she was a good mom or not. And her ex definitely had the better lawyer. Reading that line about the other lawyer who his lawyer beat in court who had to send her still breastfeeding infant to sweden to live with its father killed me.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ bros

        The custody court takes very seriously the idea that co-parenting is best for the children. Even the judge couldn’t fathom why Kelly was doing whatever she could to alienate Daniel while the custody case was still being examined and under the supervision of the court. It made no sense to the judge.

        It’s not about who you think is the better parent by whatever fractions of whatever percentages you may have in your opinion. It’s about finding out which parent would be more cooperative in co-parenting and respecting the other parent’s presence in the children’s lives and making the procedure as smooth and as stress-free as possible for the children. It’s not about the parents. It’s about what’s best for the children.

        Kelly has had at least 10 lawyers. The judge even gave her an opportunity to dump one of the lawyers who admitted to repeatedly contacting the State Department on Daniel to get his visa revoked and banned from entering the US. But she decided to keep that lawyer and dump the one who was working on her case for the past 18-months at the time. She seems to want lawyers that will do it her way, instead of taking any good advice they have for her. But see where that got her? She’s been sabotaging her own case, IF her actual goal was to get primary custody.

        Daniel has had one set of lawyers from the start and has followed their good advice and has kept his mouth shut and has relied on the laws and the courts to handle the cases. See the difference in results?

        Bros, if you read in the Vanity Fair article that they’re now in Sweden, then you probably didn’t read the article carefully enough. They’re in Monaco.

        There are articles on the internet from 2008 in which Kelly said she’s still breastfeeding her two-year old son. One is on the New York Daily News site to whom she gave this interview. She said she gets funny looks in public when she does that, but apparently she’s OK with that. She said her inspiration was a doula who’s breastfed her kids until two to four years old and that kids should wean themselves naturally.

        So as for the daughter, Daniel wasn’t even alerted to her birth by Kelly and only found out through the media a month or so afterwards. Then it took many more months before he was able to get a judge to allow him onto the birth certificate.

        So unless you’re going by Kelly’s idea that breastfeeding should continue until the kid is two to four years old or gets tired of breastfeeding all by his/her lonesome, then that breastfeeding argument of yours doesn’t really work out well in this case, especially as the daughter was about 3 years old when she went to live with her father.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        A parent’s interactions with the other parent are directly related to what is best for the children. When one parent intentially tries to alienate the children from the other parent, the courts will deem that parent as not having the best interest of the children at heart, but instead, that their own selfish devious interests trump their children’s needs. No court in America is going to put up with that in this day and age. They will side with the alienated parent every time. She shot herself in the foot big time. And now she will cry and be a martyr. I think it’s what she really wanted too. I think her love and care for the children was a smoke screen. She used them and this entire situation as fodder to keep herself in the press because she has no career to speak of and the woman likes sympathy attention. And that in and of itself is disturbing – the need for sympathy attention. If she had received custody of the kids, then I would really worry for them. Mom who needs sympathy attention who gets the kids after an epic and very public battle? What would she have done for attention then if she won? I won’t go there with my armchair psychology, but I have a few ideas in my head, and my instincts are usually spot on.

      • bros says:


        I did read it carefully. The line about the baby that was sent to Sweden to be with its father when the mother (who was also a lawyer) was still breastfeeding her wasn’t about Kelly. It was talking about the ruthlessness of Daniel’s lawyer in another case she won.

        Please re-read my actual comment (and the article) so you can see what I was referring to when I wrote it. I said nothing about Rutherford’s breastfeeding.

        Also on the record, think it’s great that she breastfed until the kid was 2 on the subway. kudos to her.

      • LAK says:

        Bros: when I read that piece of trash article in VF magazine, my incredulity new no bounds.

        She repeatedly glossed over what she did wrong, insinuates or implies that Daniel is a wrongun and repeatedly paints herself a victim.

        And she lies about stuff that is on record in court documents.

        I can’t believe VF wrote this garbage and I wrote them an email telling them off, and including a links to the statement of decision, the Homeland security and white house responses to her petitions, links to her petition to federal court in which she declares that if the court doesn’t give her what she wants she intends to kidnap her kids – this was the first time she didn’t send those kids back. A fact VF (and many outlets) doesn’t mention.

        This article sorely tested my belief in the veracity of VF’s reporting because they didn’t write a balanced report even if they had set out to give KR’s side of events. The whole thing was quite delusional.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ bros

        Ironically, VF mentions that Kelly and your Kurtz lady spoke before a congressional hearing to ask for legislation that ensures American children living abroad have access to their American parents… Ironic because Kelly has said she has visited the kids 80 times and because Daniel pays for her airfare, residence, and car service 6x per year.

        So while Kelly is pretending she’s the victim of a father who isn’t overly eager to share co-parenting duties with her, she’s going to congress asking for what?

        Also, there’s nothing in the VF story that gives any detail about Kurtz’s case, except for that one catch line. Just like the rest of that article which refuses to correct itself and use information mostly attained from court documents rather than what someone is spinning to the writer in Kelly’s favor.

      • Mgsota says:

        Thanks for the link to the article. I read it but have to admit it didn’t make me feel bad for her in the least.

        My recap: she hooked up with a dude, got pregnant quickly. Married him. At some point figured out she didn’t like him and has been playing unfairly and making horrible decisions since. Essentially trying to kick him to the curb. One of her 10+ lawyers should have advised her to play nice. I’m sad for her children who I’m sure miss their mom, but she’s the one that continually f’ed it up.

      • April says:

        i think I’ll believe the actual court decisions that I’ve read over a biased magazine article. But thanks.

      • Liberty says:

        The VF article was slanted, poorly reported, and really makes me look askance at VF. I have to assume it was done by a friend, on her behalf. Poor journalism.

        I’m glad you wrote to VF, LAK. That piece made me decide not to renew a subscription.

  3. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Tbh I don’t think it was ever about custody of the kids, I think it was about winning and in that case I have no doubt that right now she’s gnashing her teeth and screaming.

    Her kids were like her little puppets that she could make them wear what she liked, take them where she wanted, act out the role of the heartbroken mother just trying to hold onto her babies and rail against their Father. Now she doesn’t have that.

    Sure she’ll still do a few media tours crying against the injustice of it all, but once the interest has faded and another new drama hits the media she’s old news.

    No media, no puppets, no ex to punish.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree. She just wanted attention and revenge. Good riddance.

      • Elliott says:

        Money. She also wanted money. At least since she lost Gossip Girl paycheck.

      • anniefannie says:

        In their October issue Vanity Fair printed a very pro-Rutherford article. I responded by writing a scorching letter about her legal shenanigans and parading her children in front of the press. I was just notified VF is printing it.
        My favorite part of this is knowing what a press whore she is , she’ll read it and hopefully comprehend that people are on to her!

      • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

        Ooh Annie! Great job! I might just have to sneak a peek at that letter and enjoy seeing her little sympathy tour come crashing down around her.

      • doofus says:

        nice job anniefannie…let’s hope Kylie/Kelly reads it.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Annie – Way to go! I’m interested. Must read.

      • Izzy says:

        Oh anniefannie, you are the BEST.

      • minx says:

        anniefannie, I am a VF subscriber and look forward to your letter!

      • anniefannie says:

        Thanks guys!!
        I’m going thru a similar situation in that my ex is doing his level best to alienate me from my daughter but I continue to be supportive of he and my daughters relationship and grin & bear it as I know one day he’ll wake up and realize his mistake. My attorney was determined to slime him and I absolutly refused. I’ve walked this walk so I find Rutherfords behavior particularly reprehensible!

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I’m sort of late to the game, but way to go anniefannie!

      • Crumpet says:

        Ditto and – ditto!

      • Addison says:

        The only reason I heard of this lady is because of the custody case. So sad that she makes it about herself. If she had not done that she might have retained at least 50/50 custody.

    • Birdix says:

      Maybe I’m Pollyanna (again), but I don’t understand the venom against her here. She’s made some huge mistakes, sure. She’s possibly vapid and narcissistic and likely quite selfish. But she’s got Leann Rimes level of loathing here (which I never quite understood either really). Abusive and not interested in her kids, just the fight and the media attention? That’s a different level than what I’d imagine, reading about her (but again maybe too Pollyanna). This is a tough break if she does love those kids, that’s for sure. And the mother of all temper tantrums is certainly in the Monaco cards.

      • minx says:

        I came late to this case and started following it with an open mind. But KR has been shameless in her narcissism and self promotion and has not acted in the best interests of her kids. She has defied the court and has been acting out some kind of weird drama in which she is the star. I really think she has several screws loose.

      • lilacflowers says:

        Her bigotry and her whole “Murica” schtick is offensive and revolting. Especially as she herself clearly never bothered to read the Constitution. I also resented her wasting my tax dollars on her ridiculous petitions to the White House and Congress.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        See, I am not sure she truly loves her kids. Being divorced I can understand how you can absolutely detest an ex. But if you genuinely love and care about your kids, you don’t try to obliterate their father from their lives by any means necessary. You grit your teeth and act like a mature adult for the good of the children.

        I think Kelly gets a lot of loathing and vitriol here and on other sites (when I checked yesterday afternoon, the majority of commenters were supportive of the judge’s decision – which was a surprise since only a few months ago the reverse was true) because she is her own worst enemy. I don’t know about you, but after a while of seeing someone repeatedly lie and encourage criminal activity, I just can’t anymore.

      • swack says:

        @ Birdix: She has done almost anything she can to get the father out of her childrens’ lives. The one reason they are in Monaco is because she/her lawyer made false accusations against the father saying he was involved in illegal arms deals. Therefore his visa was revoked and he cannot get another one until she writes to the US government telling them that it was all a lie. She refuses to do that. She also wanted to keep the father’s name off the daughter’s birth certificate and just last summer she would not hand the children back over to him when her visitation was over. Also she has made statements that whoever got her children back for her would be heroes (kidnapping). I have learned all this from various commenters who have read the divorce. He has not slammed her one bit despite all she has done. That is were the anger and that comes from. She is not trying to co-parent in a good way. And believe me, I’m a bit of a pollyanna when it comes to things and this just makes me angry.

      • Alex says:

        the vitriol against her has to do with the fact that her ex was deported under her false claims. When he couldn’t back to the US on a Visa (again because of her) the tides turned against her. Had she not made outrageous claims that got him deported perhaps this would’ve been a 50/50 case. Then its the constant crying to the media and just all around craziness surrounding her now. I used to sympathize until I went back to the beginning. She brought this on herself

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Birdix

        It starts with reading the custody document:

        Statement of Decision Kelly Rutherford PDF

        Then it goes on with her years of behavior that have gone against getting rulings in her favor if her actual goal was to get residential custody.

      • Colleen says:

        @BIRDIE It’s dangerous to assume that Kelly Rutherford will restrict her crazy and malicious behavior just to her children’s father, and it seems that most people, including the courts of New York and Monaco get that.

        This woman has stooped to insane levels to get back at her ex-husband, and the children have been greatly affected by this. That is why she has earned the venom of just about everyone who learns of this case; because she’s a pathetic narcissist whose motives have been exposed as contrary to protecting her children and ensuring their health and happiness. She’s desperately hanging on to the tiny threads of fame left over from her days on television and is under the illusion that if she keeps fanning the flames of the custody situation, she may muster up enough pity for people to feel sorry for her and employ her again and make her rich and famous. She’s despicable.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        She is worse than a pathetic narcissist. She is a dangerous narcissist, possibly sociopathic. And no, her venom would not stop with the children’s father. It would not stop with him if she’d received custody. And I’m doubting that now that he has attained custody, she either won’t stop with him or she’ll focus on someone else…possibly the kids. That is why the courts deem her detrimental to the kids. She is not harmless. She is ruthless and manipulative. I wouldn’t put anything past her and I’m thinking the courts feel the same way and that is why they won’t even allow her to spend time with them here…because Lord only knows what she might do.

      • Birdix says:

        Yes, I see all of this, including the igniting Trump supporter types with xenophobia, which I’m sure will unfortunately go bananas after this decision. I’m still of two minds, mostly because I’ve seen how crazy nasty divorces make otherwise sane people, and because in the divorces I’ve seen the men (in these cases) have done far worse and have ended up with more custody. I don’t mean to suggest that she should have more custody because she’s a woman. Just that parents can get away with really crazy stuff and still end up with 50/50. So either she’s way worse than I’m giving her credit for, or the Monaco judges use a different standard. All this said, I have a sad feeling that wherever the truth is, the kids will end up looking back and feeling like their mom used them for publicity. yuck.
        And I do fault a system that can deport someone based on false allegations and when the veracity of the claims is called into question not make any effort to correct that mistake and/or allow them to take action against the person making the accusation. I know the kids are happy and fine in Europe, don’t mean to suggest they should live here or there or anywhere, but it’s a pity the bureaucracy is so inflexible.

      • ERM says:

        @Birdix – She showed her true colors when she left her first husband after his diagnosis and ultimate death. Despite her being a horrible person, I was surprised at her attempt at manipulating the Courts, lawyers, fans, etc. This woman has a serious narcissistic disorder and is unstable. She has not just pulled crazy stuff – her antics cause me concern for the safety of the children and it seems like to her they are props only.

      • Ennie says:

        You know Governments screenings and vettings are not perfect 100% of the times.
        She was getting away with being a nasty ex after she and Giersch divorced and they were sharing the children in the US. She was slamming him in the media, saying she’d raise the children without the father, she was suing him for trying to potty train the older kid (I think he was already 3 years old), she was having trouble because she wanted to move to NY or something.
        She was a restless ex-wife, I suspect a nightmare to coparent with.
        She probably got tired of it all and decided to finally do her majectiv move to keep the children for herself with that call to the Dept. of State.
        She assumed that because the was an American, and the Mother she’ll get preference…
        It’s called karma, baby.

      • Keaton says:

        I agree with you @Birdix. Although I think she’s behaved very selfishly and absolutely brought most of this on to herself I don’t feel comfortable saying she doesn’t love her children at all or that they are better off without her as some here allege. Even shitty people can love their kids. They may not know how to do it well but they still love them. And I’ve personally seen many kids who *long* to be close to and have a relationship with the shitty people who are their parents. It’s heartbreaking to witness. That parent – child bond is primal She’s not a serial killer or a monster so I definitely think that’s a big leap.

        In fact I’ll go further and say on average people are *much* harder on moms that screw up than fathers that screw up. Maybe we just expect more from mothers. Anyway blast away at me for that if you want.
        Hell it’s possible the stress of this case may have made her even crazier
        A few things I’m sure most of us can agree on: Her ex is much smarter, has greater self-control and has a better lawyer. Also, she really played this all wrong and her kids are suffering and will continue to suffer for it. So to me the whole thing is a tragedy.

  4. lilacflowers says:


    • Belle Epoch says:

      IKR? This actually made me happy – as if I even knew them!

      Hope this shuts up all the Kellybots and their absurd claims. No more visits to The View for her!

      • InvaderTak says:

        Nope. There’s one here already. We’ll be hearing more from her and them.

      • Belle Epoch says:

        Oh dear. She will continue to use this, won’t she?

        Just want to point out that the kids apparently Skype their mother all the time and talk to her as much as they wish. They can maintain a long-distance relationship through technology, and see her intermittently. I think she is narcicisstic, delusional, combative, manipulative, uncooperative, and greedy, so they don’t need to see her constantly – it would just confuse the heck out of them. I was really worried she was going to kidnap those children – except going into hiding means no paparazzi!

      • Kylie says:

        Because Skype is totes the same as being with her in person.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @Kylie, that’s exactly what Kelly wanted when Daniel was forced to live in Europe. She thought it was perfectly fine for the kids to live full-time in the U.S. with her and just Skype him.

      • Kylie says:

        But if it had happened that way, you would be screaming foul. But since it was a woman who was punished instead of a man, you are cool with it and think it is fair. If he only had Skype access, you would all he having an epic fit.

      • snowflake says:

        Doesn’t it say in the article that she can visit them? So the skyping is only between visits. She shouldn’t have kidnapped the kids, then they would still be visiting her in the U.S. poor, poor Kelly, she made her bed, now she has to lie in it. Sniff

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Kylie

        Let’s not pretend that the only time she gets to see the kids is when Daniel has the kids Skype her (on a daily basis, iirc). As mentioned above to you, she’s had visits with them in the US, France, Monaco, every season’s school holidays, and she’s admitted to visiting them 80 times. Daniel has paid for her air fare, residence, and car service.

        But after her lawyer repeatedly contacted the State Department and a month later, Daniel’s visa was revoked, he had no legal ability to come visit the kids in the US, while Kelly has no travel bans on her in any of the pertinent countries. For a while, Daniel was traveling to the Bahamas and staying in hotels, all on his own dime, to see his kids. Kelly has visited the kids in Monaco paid for by Daniel.

        When the judge gave her options to try to help get Daniel’s visa reinstated, Kelly refused. She wanted Daniel out of the country and not be able to live and visit his kids in the US.

        And as the others have said above, she wanted the kids to have mostly a Skype-relationship with the kids.

        So whose fault is this result? And who should live with the consequences of their own actions and try to make peace instead of constant war?

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Kylie, actually, she’s lucky to have Skype access. Inmates can’t skype and she could have landed in prison for the stunt she pulled abducting those kids. This is NOT a situation of supporting men over women, as you are trying to portray it. It is a case of one woman being an absolute jerk and manipulating her children, putting them at risk for deadly diseases, and being a revolting bigot

      • JenniferJustice says:

        Oh for Heaven’s sake please read the article again. She does not only get to skype visit with them. She gets regular visitation but only in their country so she can’t kidnap them again.

        After seeing literally hundreds of women get away with awful behavior because male judges feel sorry for them when they turn on the faucets in court, I am more than happy with this ruling. In Michigan, we have an advocacy group for fathers called ADAM who work with and support fathers through the court custody process – much needed and long over due. Psycho mothers don’t get away with squat here anymore – as it should be.

  5. Kylie says:

    I know a lot of people are going to cheer that decision. But kids not seeing their mother, which is what will happen, is not a good thing.

    • bellenola says:

      I can see your point, but what if the mother is a shrill toxic narcissist? I think they did what’s ultimately best for the kids.

    • lilacflowers says:

      She still has visitation rights. They will still see her. She totally destroyed any chance she had of more when she abducted them this summer. She’s lucky her butt wasn’t thrown into jail. And don’t get me started on her refusal to vaccinate them. Stupidity at its utmost.

      • LAK says:

        don’t forget, this was the second time she abducted them. i cant believe the father let her take them this summer after she abducted them last summer. she said she would kidnap them again unless the federal court gave her full custody.

        this summer’s shenanigans were set in motion by previous summer’s shenanigans. i imagine Daniel was lenient last summer because he didn’t think it would be this bad. second time? he put a stop to it.

      • Kylie says:

        It is only a matter of time until he gets the court to strip visitation.

      • bluhare says:

        That was a very expensive two to three days last summer (that was about the time they overstayed, correct?). It was almost as if Daniel Giersch was anticipating that she would do that, and it appears that is the reason he gets to keep the kids with him.

        You are free to think he will try to strip her of visitation. I doubt that will happen. He’s been paying her to come to Monaco six times a year, so I doubt he’ll stop now when he knows she’ll go to court if he even tried to deny her a second of time she wants.

        Assuming you care, read the court documents that have been posted on every article on this topic for months. They give an excellent picture of why she’s in this spot today, and it’s called overplaying your hand.

      • Kylie says:

        Oh wow, six whole times, in a year with 52 weeks.

      • GingerCrunch says:

        …there’s always hope.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Kylie

        Even Kelly has said on TV that she’s visited them 80 times. So if you can’t believe her, then how can you believe anything else she’s said?

        Do you know what 80 times means? That means Daniel has been OK with her visiting the kids MORE than the number of times even the court gave her.

        And it proves that he’s all for having Kelly in the kids’ lives however many dozens and dozens of times she’s wanted in these past few years.

        Based on his history of doing EVERYTHING he can to hold his tongue and to encourage his kids’ contact with her, there’s no reason to believe that he will stop visitations in the future.

        As for this ruling, it stops Kelly from using the kids as physical pawns in a media circus every time she wants (though she’ll find a way) and keeps them from having to go through yearly dramas of keeping them beyond the court-arranged date (i.e. kidnapping).

        If Kelly wants to continue fighting this out in court, then she shouldn’t have physically used the kids to make her actions more dramatic and attention-grabbing.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Kylie, only a matter of time before he strips visitation? Why? Do you know of some additional crime she has committed that hasn’t been publicized yet?

      • bluhare says:

        So that’s all you got from my response, Kylie? Six times per year, Oh wow? Apparently you failed to note that’s the times HE PAYS FOR. Up until now they had 50/50 custody and she could see them half the time. And he offered her a house there which she declined. So she could definitely see them more than 6 times per year (at two weeks per trip, that equals 20% of the year that HE paid for). And now he’s paying her support now he has them full time. Poor Kelly; she’s been so badly done to and misunderstood!

        Have you read the court documents?

      • Samtha says:

        @Gingercrunch, nothing has stopped her from staying longer or visiting more often. According to the court documents, her ex has gone above and beyond to facilitate her relationship with the kids.

        And frankly, that is a pretty common arrangement for divorced couples who live far apart–the kids see the other parent on holidays and during the summer. For example, when we lived in New York, my husband had custody of his kids for two weeks during the summer, half their spring break and half their winter holiday break. That’s one reason we moved across the country to be closer to them–because he wanted to see his kids more often.

        No, it’s not ideal, but Kelly doesn’t deserve special treatment or special arrangements just because she’s famous.

      • Tarsha says:

        Kylie, he has never attempted to strip her visitation, in fact, he has paid for her to visit. The guy is a nice doormat. Kelly is the master manipulator who tried to stop their FATHER’S visitation. The fact that the dangerous, unstable and psychotic egg donor is even allowed visitation is horrifying to me. She should have all her parental rights terminated ie meaning she is never to be legally recognised as their mother, ever again. I hope to God that he does, finally, get her stripped of visitation. She should never be allowed to see or touch those children ever again.

    • Patricia says:

      Just because a woman pushes a baby out doesn’t mean she will be a good mother. Some mothers are indeed so awful that children are better off without them.
      I’m not cheering because the whole mess is sad for the kids. But you have to be a good mother to deserve your kids.

      • Kylie says:

        Except the original court decision back in 2012 said she was a good parent.

      • Elliott says:

        Yeah in 2012. But she got worse.

      • lilacflowers says:

        @Kylie, that court decision was before she disobeyed court orders and kidnapped them.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Kylie

        It said she was against co-parenting, which is part of good parenting.

        If she wanted her kids to be in the US, then she had to make peace with Daniel.

        But everything she’s done has made sure the kids would live primarily with Daniel and that she would lose visitations rights in the US. She’s sabotaged herself IF her actual goal was to be the primary custodial parent.

    • Reg says:

      Only they will see their mother. It’s right there in the verdict, which says that Kelly is allowed to ‘exercise her visiting and accommodation rights exclusively in France and Monaco.’ So, really, this is all up to her, so now she can demonstrate just how loving and caring mother she can be.

      Besides, do you think it’s good for any child’s mental health if their parent is an abusive, narcissistic a-hole? Would it not be better to be as far away from such a parent as possible?

      • Kylie says:

        Until he finds some b.s. reason to deny her access, again. And that will happen. The courts have never stopped him from doing anything.

      • Birdix says:

        Why do you think she’s abusive?

      • LAK says:

        Birdix: there was the time she wrote her phone number down and placed it into her 4yr(?) old son’s shoe and told him that he should scream that he was being kidnapped by his father should they find themselves at an airport.

      • Reg says:

        @Birdix Umm… is it really not clear to you at this point? If not, you can read CK’s and GNAT’s responses below, they’re just some tidbits of what she has/hasn’t done.

      • doofus says:

        “Until he finds some b.s. reason to deny her access, again.”

        Except that he’s never denied her access to them.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Kylie

        When has Daniel ever used a BS excuse to deny her visitation?

        On the other hand, Kelly has used every BS excuse as to why Daniel shouldn’t be in their kids’ lives.

    • Betti says:

      What? They will be able to see their mother, didn’t you read it. She has lost the right to have them solely in her custody – she has to visit them in France under supervision which am sure you will agree given her past behaviour is whats best of the kids.

      Her ex has ALWAYS encouraged visitation – in fact he pays for her to visit them in France. He pays for her flights and accommodation.

      • Kylie says:

        He only pays for some of her visits. He was previously only responsible for paying for six. Six visits a year is not enough, unless she stretches them out. And to do that, she can’t work. It is not as though there is a ton of work for actresses her age, and I would guess there is even less work for a middle-aged American actress in France or Monaco.

      • Lucy2 says:

        I’ve never seen anything showing how he prevented her from seeing them, and I think she was rather fortunate that he was willing to pay for any of her travel at all. I believe he also offered to purchase her a home nearby should she want to move there.
        Also to your earlier comment, a lot has happened since 2012, and she is since proven herself untrustworthy of following the courts rulings. I think the court did the only thing it could at this point.

      • Kylie says:

        @lucy2 There were allegations last summer, that led to court proceedings. He didn’t deny it. But he is made of Teflon. None of the courts have ever done anything about it. The courts have given him Carte Blanche. So I’m expecting the kids to rarely see her, regardless of whether they want to.

      • lilacflowers says:

        @Kylie, nothing came of those allegations because they were lies made up by Kelly. The courts have given him what the law allows when the other parent is a manipulative, lying, kidnapper who repeatedly defies court orders.

      • Kylie says:

        Except he admitted that he had refused to let her see the kids. But o certain again, whenever he violated the court orders, they just gave in and let him do it.

      • LAK says:

        Kylie that is a misrepresentation of the facts. He said she could see the kids if she gave up the kids’ passports. she refused. so he didn’t let her see the kids. Her need to hold onto the kids’ passports was greater than her need to see her own kids.

        You are defending a woman’s refusal to see her own kids because it’s better to win.

        And even if you argue that it was a sinister plot to get the kids’ passports, she would have what she wanted, time with the kids.We may not know much about the father, but he has follow through. And if he had not followed through, she would have taken him to court as she has done every single year over every little thing.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Kylie

        It was court-ordered that she had to surrender the passports when she was visiting with the kids. She refused to do so. That’s on her.

        This incident took place very soon after her TMZ interview in which she said that if someone would go get her kids away from their dad and bring them to the US, they would be heroes in America and that if anything went wrong, then she wouldn’t affix blame on this stranger(s).

        It’s like she goaded Daniel and the courts for some kind of dramatic outcome.

        Now, if she wanted to work with the courts and within the laws, she wouldn’t have made that call-out for what would basically be child kidnappers and instead, she would have just peaceably handed over the passports to show that she is capable of complying with the courts. But she couldn’t find it within herself to look like a rational person.

        ((And again and again, he’s let her visit 80 times in the past (her number) and has always stated that he wants her in the kids’ lives, so there’s no reason to believe he won’t continue to do so. ))

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I think it’s crazy you don’t see how generous this man has been with his crazy ex and he does it for the kids. What other ex do you know of who would pay for her to cross the ocean to see their kids even once, let alone six times? He offered to buy her a house there! She refused. She refused because she doesn’t want to do what’s best for the kids. She wants what makes her look good regardless of the kids’ best interest.

        Are you part of a PR team or something, because honestly, I can’t understand not only your support for Kelly Ruthless but your abhorrance for Daniel? I’m seriously thinking you are paid support for Kelly.

    • CK says:

      Living under the constant threat of being kidnapped by your own mother and separated from your father is also not a good thing. Refusing to vaccinate your kids is also not a good thing. Kelly made her bed and provided proof that her receiving any type of custody would be a dangerous thing for the well being of her kids. She will get her visitations and frankly, anything else would be a bridge to far for anyone looking out for the wellbeing of those kids after reviewing what she has done.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      That’s not always true, and in this case, where she deliberately caused them emotional stress and harm, I think the less they see her, the better off they will be. Giving birth doesn’t make you a good mother. She has placed her own selfish needs above theirs over and over, and taken what could have been a harmonious period of their lives, secure in the love of both of their parents, and turned it into a circus of upheaval and distress.

      • Kylie says:

        He has been selfish too. But of course, he never gets called out on that. He never made any attempt to fix his visa problems. He just shrugged and the courts never did anything about enforcing the original ruling

      • Reg says:

        @Kylie: Hi, Kelly! :)

      • CK says:

        @Kylie because that’s not how the original ruling was worded. In order for him to fix his visa problems, she’d have to submit a letter to the department retracting prior claims. She didn’t do her part, he couldn’t do his. Futhermore, there was a clause ruling that clause null if neither side acted, the issue would become moot and he would no longer have to go about obtaining a visa. Once again, Kelly screwed the pooch.

      • Kylie says:

        How immature of you. But at least you think you are funny.

      • Elliott says:

        The visa issue is moot since Kelly did not do what the court asked her to do and the extremely generous time limit ran out. Dead and over. No longer an excuse. Move on. Dead in the water. Tough $*** she didn’t do what the court told her and cut her nose off to spite her face.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        You really should read the facts of this case. He can’t apply for a visa unless she admits she lied, which she most certainly did, to get his visa revoked in the first place. SHE won’t do it. There’s nothing he can do without her cooperation.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Kelly

        1. The judge gave her the opportunity to dump the lawyer who made the calls to the State Department. She refused.
        2. The judge told her to sign the affidavit to help get Daniel’s visa reinstated. She refused.
        3. The judge noted that she refused the affidavit Daniel gave her because it included a line in which it stated that she (Kelly) is not against Daniel getting his visa back.
        4. The judge gave Kelly until the end of 2013 to send an affidavit to the proper authorities. She refused.
        5. The judge gave Kelly until mid-January of 2014 to request the court appoint an Immigration Expert and review of Daniel’s visa situation. She refused to take this opportunity.

        Daniel can request a visa all on his lonesome forever, but the accusations made were of guns and drug running in South America, which is considered terrorism. Under the Victory Act, that’s an automatic ban. (There were also other accusations, including kidnapping, which her lawyer threatened to use against Daniel in front of not only his lawyer but also in Kelly’s presence and admitted to knowing about this strategy beforehand.)

        It’s up to Kelly to either take back the accusations or at least write an affidavit that she is not against Daniel’s visa.

        I don’t know how Daniel could prove a negative when the accuser steadfastly refuses to take back the accusations and refuses to admit that Daniel is safe to have in the US.

    • vauvert says:

      While as a mother I can totally understand your point, and while it is true that the kids, in an ideal world, would grow up with both parents in their lives, this sad situation has been of her making.
      A lot has been said on this site and I am firmly team Daniel, but I don’t see how this could have turned out differently. Her actions created a mess in which the children were going to suffer somehow – it was just a question of which parent they were going to see a lot less of.
      I think Daniel will continue to be a gentleman and allow her to see the kids as much as possible. I think he might even be more generous financially than the court requested, in order to facilitate that. But at least the kids will now have stability and their dad can move forward.
      That is not to say that Kelly wont continue her drama, because we all know she will still go and make the media rounds, will continue to file whatever appeals the Monaco system allows and so on.

    • lisa says:

      why? passing a human through your loins just means your sex parts work. despite what society tells us, it doesnt automatically make you a good person or give you a free pass to act however you like.

      a mother can be a toxic presence in the life of a child

      • Crumpet says:

        So sadly true. And well spoken.

      • Mary-Alic says:

        I find your comment extremely rude and shockinyly ignorant. I am a mother and the whole pregnancy and delivery was so much more than “pushing a human through my loins”. It was a time of living it guly and bonding beyond anything I had ever imagined. Not after, but before I had seen my child! I am sorry that there are people like you out there. From your mouth it does indeed sound like all pregnant women and women in labour are simply incubators.

      • PoliteTeaSipper says:

        Oh Mary-Alic, please brush up on your biology. Having kids means nothing but your reproductive parts work and that you had sex. Good for you. *slow golf clap*

    • notasugarhere says:

      IF that was the outcome, which it isn’t, it is the outcome Rutherford has been pushing for 6 years. She wanted one parent to have the children the majority of the time, with the other parent only having visits via Skype and short in-person visits in a foreign country. Well, well.

    • swack says:

      @Kylie, if anything he has been more than generous with the children seeing their mother. Any other person would have had visitation stripped after the two attempted kidnappings and most likely after the first time. He has always said he wants the mother in the children’s lives. What he is trying to prevent is her taking them, hiding them so that he never sees them again. He has time and time again paid for her (and a boyfriend) to come to France to see them.

    • PoliteTeaSipper says:

      I was abused by my mother for years.

      You are wrong.

    • snowflake says:

      She has visitation! Read the article.

      • antipodean says:

        I have been truly gobsmacked by this thread. I have never seen anything like it. I got a vague feeling that it had become a game of whack-a-mole, where every time the voice of reason was expressed, up popped a lunatic mole. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad. It takes all sorts I guess, but I have no patience for the wilful naysaying of the ignorant and ill informed. Only me?

      • notasugarhere says:

        If you think this is bad, I recommend you not visit the People site.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        You’re not the only one. It perpetuates the notion that women think emotionally, not logically. The facts are pretty clearly outlined in the custody document. Kelly’s defiance of the courts and kidnapping of her children has been well publicized. Some just won’t look at things logically because they hold on to presuppositions that’s aren’t rooted in reality.

        Then again, Kylie could just be a PR plant…

      • swack says:

        DM site wasn’t much better yesterday.

      • antipodean says:

        @notasugarhere, thanks for that, I will be sure to give that site a wide berth, for fear it gives me an apoplexy. I actually cancelled my subscription to People mag recently, it was after the Duggar debacle, and after many years of paying to get People delivered I suddenly thought, this is just trash journalism, why am I paying for this garbage? I feel slightly embarrassed that it took so long for the scales to fall from my eyes. I guess I am also used to the quality of the comments on CB being generally of a high standard, that I am flummoxed when a troll finds its way here. Maybe I am naive, if so I am happy being that way.

      • Mary-Alic says:

        She has JOINT LEGAL CUSTODY while the residence is with the father. I’m scared by the non sense here. One doesn’t expect much more from DM but on this blog half of the commenters claimed to be very well educated in law. When the two parents are required to make jointly the important decisions for the kids (and those are usually the education,religion, social environment, health as well as “significant changes”) , that’s joint legal custody. She hasn’t lost her custody entirely, just the 50/50, FFS. Google is your friend, folks!

    • claire says:

      How will they not see their mother? They’ve always seen their mother. Many many times a year, all travel and housing paid by her ex-husband. And he is going to continue to pay her, and she will continue to have visitation. So explain how that is not seeing their mother?

    • Then maybe you shouldn’t have kidnapped your kids twice Kelly…I mean…Kylie

    • Carol says:

      @Kylie I get your point, but she did this to herself by putting herself above the law and the courts. I’ve been reading more about the case and have a different view of Giresch now, less positive, but still think she shouldn’t have put herself above the law just because she feels her opinion is the correct one. I do feel badly for the kids for whatever the ruling result may have been, since either way they were losing a father or a mother. And we don’t know who is the better parent. We just see Kellie going rogue with the law.

    • Tarsha says:

      I think in the case of this particular ‘mother’ – Kelly, that it is actually a good thing. Sometimes it is a good thing for children not to see their mother. This is one of those times. Kelly is a dangerous psycho, and imo she should have all her parental rights TERMINATED, IMMEDIATELY! Maybe if Daniel re-marries then his wife could adopt them if her parental rights are terminated, so they can finally have a real mother. Just because something gives birth, it doesn’t make them a *mother*. We would not hesitate to block children from seeing their mother if their mother sexually abused, or physically abused, starved them etc, so why not in this instance where she is emotionally and intellectually abusing them? Just because a person is a mother, does not mean they should have automatic rights. It is what is in the best interests of the child/ren. And what is in the best interests for these children, is for the ‘mother’, or rather egg donor, Kelly, to have all her parental rights terminated, and that she never see or visit or access her children ever again. Being a woman is one thing, but a real woman cares for children, and will take a stand against unstable, psychotic, and very dangerous ‘mothers’. There is no doubt in my mind Kelly would physically hurt those children if she had a chance. I won’t allude to what I am thinking. Just that I think she should never, EVER, EVER be allowed to be in the same room with those children again. The rights of the INNOCENT CHILDREN are, most would agree, more important than anyone or anything else. Egg donor or not.

    • Dr. Funkenstein says:

      As the child of double narcissitic parents, I can speak from experience in saying that you are completely wrong. One of the most difficult things about being a child of narcissistic parents is living in a world where the majority of people you contact have at least some sense that their parents are attached to them and care about them, regardless of whether or not their relationship was “perfect”. For kids like me, there’s no such thing. Our parents are incapable of feeling attachment to anyone else. That’s the simple fact. Their only concern is for themselves and their own interests and desires. People who have never had a relationship with a narcissist culminating in their coming to that fundamental realization are simply incapable of believing that people like that could exist, especially if they are parents. Believe me, they can. This woman is a narcissist. Her kids are entirely better off without her.

  6. Lara K says:

    This is very unsurprising. But I bet she still gets a ton of sympathy in the media and from people who choose to just see her as a loving mother who is losing her children to the evil rich in Monaco.

    Just hope this gives the kids some privacy and calm. The boy is definitely old enough to understand how nuts his mother is.

    • minx says:

      I think, finally, she is falling out of favor–the shenanigans she pulled this summer damaged her case a lot. If you read the People (ugh) comment sections, most people are sick of her.

  7. LB says:

    I don’t feel all that sorry for her. This outcome was all due to her own doing. Not putting him on the birth certificate, refusing to co parent, badmouthing him to the children, taking part in his visa revocation, not filing the CA court’s decision in NY (because she didn’t agree with it) thereby preventing any US court from asserting jurisdiction, refusing to return the kids to Monaco until ordered by a judge, not bringing said kids to court in the first place when specifically told to.

    There are not enough “but they’re American citizens” claims to overcome the fact that she never considered the best interests of her children – which is the paramount inquiry in these cases.

    • Kylie says:

      It isn’t about her. It is about kids not having access to their mom. And despite the claims of his defenders, he has made statements that show he is trying to drive a wedge between her and the kids. Will you feel bad for the kids when one develops a drug problem or has a nervous breakdown?

      • Elliott says:

        That is not true. Where is ANY statement that HE is trying to drive a wedge between her and the kids. There are not any. And as for the kids. She was using them to make money charging media for their photos. Is she trying to turn them into celebrity child models? How would that be beneficial for their mental health instead of a protected private childhood with a good education in Monaco? The order said she doesn’t seem to be interested in their education. Nor their health if she won’t let them be vaccinated as required by law in France and Monaco.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, please. All mothers are NOT good for their children. You seem to think that the mere process of giving birth makes you a positive influence in your children’s life. It doesn’t. She’s selfish, immature, dishonest, incapable of taking responsibility for her own actions and delusional. He most certainly has not tried to do anything but accommodate her and co-parent with her peacefully. She kidnapped them, for heaven’s sake. She parades them around, dressed in all white, forcing them to help her get attention. By all reports, they are perfectly happy with their father, and the fact that she can’t spend more time with them is no one’s fault but her own. Your words say you are on the side of the children, but you don’t take their happiness or mental health into account at all. If they do turn out badly, it will probably be the result of the trauma she has already put them through, and will undoubtedly continue to cause them.

      • Jwoolman says:

        Like what statements? He has repeatedly said he wants the kids to have both parents in their lives. He was fine with 50/50. She has said that she doesn’t think the kids need a father and wanted 100% custody. She had a history of blocking visitation when he was still in the U.S. She has been making public statements against him while he has been quiet, and she has been saying stuff to the kids during transitions and acting hysterical to upset them, behavior that was already so bad in 2013 that the Statement of Decision spelled out the rules for transitions that expressly forbid such things . Her continued violations of the custody agreement are what resulted in this ruling. The kids will continue to see her frequently unless she goes off in a snit and refuses to leave US soil.

      • Kylie says:

        Like when he got the kids back earlier this year and made a snide comment about how the kids were fine without her.

      • Elliott says:

        “after snide comment that the kids are fine without her.” And exactly what had she said about him? Hum? That they were afraid of him and going back to him. I would say his remark was pretty mild after that little bit of slander out of her big mouth.

      • Jess says:

        Kylie = Kelly Rutherford?

      • Kylie says:

        I forgot, unless someone defends anything a father does around here, they must be a shill. Never mind, that almost everyone else says practically the same thing his team says verbatim. When something tragic happens as a result of his actions, I’m sure you will all continue to defend him.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Wow, Kylie, you really want something terrible to happen to those children so you can be right, don’t you? Maybe you ARE Kelly. You certainly think like her.

      • lilacflowers says:

        @kylie, they have access to their mother all the time, so long as she pays her phone bill. Yes, something tragic could happen to those children, like they could contract measles and die because of their pathetic excuse of a mother who refuses to vaccinate them. THAT is what you are defending.

      • HeySandy says:

        Lol at the very obvious and weak trolling. Nothing to back up the comments that Kelly is a “good” mother and Daniel is the bad, terrible father who is taking her children away. Having grown up with a narcissistic, self-absorbed mother, I really feel for the children because Kelly definitely comes off as one as well. I’m glad they have a father that is willing to make the hard decisions to do what is best for his kids. And the best is not being alone for long stretches of time with their emotionally toxic mother. Having a working womb doesn’t give you the “right” to be a mother, being a giod mother does.

      • swack says:

        Please tell me what he has said or done to drive a wedge between the children and their mother?

      • GingerCrunch says:

        Aha. Is someone speaking from similar personal experience?

      • Crumpet says:

        Please link me to those statements. Thank you.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I know, such obvious trolling, I’m sorry I fed it.

      • claire says:

        People keep pointing out to you the multiple times a year Daniel pays for and facilitates Kelly’s visits to see the kids. You keep ignoring this and stating Kelly can’t see her kids. Why are you commenting here if and engaging if you are just going to ignore facts, then get butthurt that your side isn’t being listened to?

      • HeySandy says:

        @GNAT no worries, it is really hard to try to ignore willful ignorance and arguements that lack actual facts. Logic wants to take hold and correct it.

      • JenniferJustice says:

        You took the exact actions of Kelly and are trying to put them on Daniel. All you get from it is people seeing how awful it was of Kelly to do the things you accuse Daniel might do in the future. Please take your Kelly plugs somewhere else. You’re purposely denying the truth and making false claims against someone for no reason other than to stir up support for Kelly which is not going to happen here. We aren’t fans and we’ve watched this unfold for years, so you can’t spin it in her favor. Nice try. You’ll still get paid for your attempts but you won’t succeed. I’m picturing you surfing the internet for Ruthorford articles while sitting in a MacDonalds with wifi, eating a burger paid for by your client.

      • Darkladi says:

        Wow. Kylie/Kelly. Stop being butt-hurt and act like a big girl.

  8. Patricia says:

    She thought rules don’t apply to her. She’s using those kids for all the publicity she can get.
    I feel so sad for those kids. I hope this begins a period of stability in their lives.

  9. CK says:

    And this is why you don’t disobey a lawful custody order, Kelly. Custody is not about winning or sticking it to your ex. It’s about whats best for the kids and getting kidnapped by your mother definitely is not. Ugh, I guess we are going to have to set through a media cry fest and the expected “outrage”. I wonder if Kelly is going to try to get in bed with the Trump crowd.

  10. Betti says:

    I sort of agree with you that this is the outcome she wanted and that she doesn’t really want the kids full time – its the drama surrounding the situation that she desperately wants. She will ‘eat out’ on this for years and will use it to fulfill her agenda as being the victim. Her narcissism won’t allow her to be a good mother – she is desperate to be the martyr/poster mother for victimhood.

    Am glad those children have a stable life with their father and grandmother. Wonder what she will do for money now that she can’t pimp her kids out for a quick buck. The pap laws in France are very tough.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Betti

      Unfortunately, Daniel has to pay her 3,000 Euros every month. And she’ll probably take them to France, where they have less paparazzi restrictions than Monaco does. She might be able to get money from that. She also has that Children’s Justice campaign which solicits donations. She’ll probably continue to do interviews and she might make some money off of them too. I wouldn’t be surprised if she makes money off of selling her Instagram photos she uploads of her kids.

      I think it was not only about winning, being a martyr, showing the world there’s a bad guy in her life, but also about the money.

      • Betti says:

        Yes but with the legal fees and the lifestyle she has that 3,000 Euros won’t go far and neither will the money she gets from selling photo’s and the campaign fund. She is broke and is living off her wealthy friends and/or whatever wealthy man is stupid enough to get involved with her.

        Now that she has lost joint custody she has also lost her meal ticket – as i said about the alimony won’t go far. She can’t use the kids now to bleed money from him.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Betti

        I hope your last statement comes true.

      • Elliott says:

        She appeared to be trying to launch modeling or “endorsement” ads for the kids this last summer with her “clothes horsing” the children. The order said she could keep the money she had already collected but seemed to warn her off doing it in the future especially since she can’t take them out of Monaco or France. Also the ex having full custody now she can’t sign contracts on the kids which may have been the reasoning behind letting her keep the money she had already collected to avoid contract problems.

      • Lady D says:

        The Daily Mail papers say she was awarded 1500 euros a month, which is about $3000 american.

  11. Lucy2 says:

    All her own doing. Had she abided by the law, she would still have shared custody. Had she not caused his visa to be revoked, he could still come to the US and the kids would probably still be living there.
    I hope this provide some stability for the kids, and that they are able to have a relationship with her without all of the drama and publicity and fighting. Given how much she seems to enjoy publicly playing the victim, I have my doubts though.

  12. ali.hanlon says:

    Happy for the kids.

    Now they have a stable life.

  13. grabbyhands says:

    ‘It was,’ she said, ‘the most cruel act against a child I have ever witnessed in my entire life.’

    Oh SHUT UP, you spoiled, selfish t**t!!!! You know what a cruel act against a child is? Them being driven from their homes to escape possible genocide. Being groomed a child soldier or a sex slave. Basic abuse and neglect at the hands of someone who was entrusted with their care. THOSE are cruel acts against a child.

    Your kids are healthy, wealthy, privileged and living in a beautiful, peaceful country with a parent that truly seems to have their well being in mind. You’re pissed because you didn’t get your own way, which you wanted at ANY cost, including the security and happiness of your own kids. SO I can assume we will see another series of appearances of you dressed all in white while you whine about your AMERICAN kids being torn away from you.

    GOD. Just STFU. For your kid’s sake, if no one else’s.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Well said, grabbyhands!!!!!

    • GingerCrunch says:

      That quote leapt out at me too! She must never, ever read a newspaper. Guess if it’s not happening to her own children (i.e. her) it’s not that awful. Sickening.

    • doofus says:

      yeah, that statement caught my eye too.

      kelly, start reading the refugee stories on Humans of New York and see if your statement still holds true.

      start reading stories of children that were abducted to be sold as sex slaves.

      start reading about the children who make up the sweatshop labor force in third world countries.

      start reading about the kids who drink water from the gutter in under-developed countries because it’s all they have.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Thank you, grabby.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ grabbyhands +1000

      Very well said.

      It’s ironic that she made that comment since she founded an organization that allegedly deals with parents whose children have actually been kidnapped by the other parent. So this is the worse she’s seen when she’s no doubt been told worse stories by those her charity is supposedly helping? Geez. No empathy from her for anybody else, right?

    • NUTBALLS says:

      I’m sick of her melodrama. Good riddance, you nutjob.

    • JenniferJustice says:

      Knowing Kelly, I’d be checking into any charity she has her hands in.

    • I Choose Me says:

      And Grabby wins this thread. *Shakes tambourine as you testify!*

    • lucy2 says:

      Yes, that comment is downright offensive, considering the actual horrible and cruel stuff that happens to children all over the world every damn day.

    • Assistant Rachel says:


  14. Swack says:

    TMZ has reportef that her lawyer says that she is going to appeal th decision.

    • Elliott says:

      How is she going to pay him? How is she so broke she needs maintenance to go see her kids but she has money for appeals?

    • Crumpet says:

      But why? There is no way in God’s green earth this decision will ever be reversed.

      • swack says:

        I honestly think she thinks it will be reversed. So many times she has tried and so many times failed. They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

      • Dr. Funkenstein says:

        One of the hallmarks of the narcissistic personality is an inability to learn from mistakes. Narcissists can be remarkably stubborn in persisting in courses of action that are actually harmful to themselves. This is partly the result of the inability to accept any alternate points of view once they have made a decision on any matter. They will persist in believing they are right even in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      Isn’t that pretty much standard practice for a lawyer to appeal a verdict that they don’t like? She really doesn’t have a case, but it gives the appearance of fighting back against the “unjust” court system.

      • Elliott says:

        The attorney may have told he would but he really won’t just to get rid of her. That happens too when the check doesn’t materialize for the appeal.

      • lilacflowers says:

        No, not standard practice at all. You need grounds for an appeal beyond not liking the decision and the area of review narrows the higher up the chain a case goes. The appeal would be looking at whether the judge made an error by not following rules or precedent.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I realize they need to show grounds in order to get a reversal of decision, what I’m saying is, isn’t it normal for the losing party to do whatever they can to try and prove grounds in order to get a reversal? It seems I see this especially in civil court cases. I expected her lawyer to file an appeal, but I wouldn’t expect it to ultimately give her a different outcome, than what she has now.

  15. tracking says:

    I think it’s very extreme to say she never wanted full custody of those kids. She loves and wants those kids, but is a spoiled narcissist who wanted to completely cut out the ex and doesn’t know how to put their needs above her own. The ruling is entirely deserved, but sad that she blew up any chance of fully co-parenting through her own terrible decisions.

    • anne_000 says:

      If she did want full custody, it would come with a very hefty monthly child support check…

      Even when she had them this past summer, there was a (supposed) nanny photographed with her and the kids. Why?

      I remember the criticism of this because after all her tantrums about wanting to be with the kids all the time, instead of sequestering herself away with the kids in a private place, she’s out and about in the city, dragging the kids to numerous pap’d events and then there’s this nanny to babysit the kids. Just weird.

    • Samtha says:

      I agree with this 100%. I think she wants the kids, but she wants them all to herself.

    • Keaton says:

      This is pretty much my take as well.

  16. Tiffany says:

    I agree. She did not want full custody, she wanted to renew her career. You know something is wrong when you can make a career out of being a victim.

  17. Minxx says:

    As a child of divorce (with a very immature, narcissistic mother), I feel for the kids. They have a tough road ahead. At least they have the love and stability of their father’s family in Monaco, so hopefully they’ll be OK in the end.

    • Crumpet says:

      Amen to that Minxx. Quite honestly, the more limited their contact to her, the better. It is natural for a child to want to attach to a mother. But sometimes a mother isn’t a mother, and in that case it is necessary to remove her from their lives as much as possible.

  18. funcakes says:

    What in the world did she think was going to happen?

    Its obvious the one thing she’s unwilling to do is go to jail for her cause. When she showed up in court without the children as instructed I knew then it would end badly. That was a big F U to the judge as far as I’m concerned. And if she didn’t have an expensive lawyer she would have been led away in hand cuffs awhile ago.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      Being a lawyer, I really cannot advocate breaking the law or violating court orders. BUT…frankly speaking, if I TRULY had evidence that my ex-spouse was abusing or neglecting my children when they were in his custody, you can bet your @$$ that I would go to jail happily, with a smile on my face and a song in my heart if it meant protecting them from more harm. That is, I would go to jail if the authorities could find me because I would have hidden my kids and myself far, far away, changed our identities, and done everything to stay off the radar screen until they were both over the age of 18. (Or, as some of my friends might say, I would be going to jail for murdering my ex, but I prefer to think that even at my IMAGINED worst I would not want the father of my children actually dead.) Even if it meant allowing others to raise my children while I served my time, I would do it because after all my kids’ lives and safety are more important than anything else. At least this is how I think I might act if such a situation arose.

      Kelly knows she is in the wrong here. She knows she does not have even a scintilla of evidence that the children are in danger when they are with Daniel. She knows that she cannot live without the cameras and being in the public eye. So she is more than happy to let others do the dirty work for her, like letting that twit lawyer Wendy Murphy purport to represent the children or petitioning the White House or effectively asking random strangers to kidnap her children and return them to the U.S. When push comes to shove though, she is not willing to risk her freedom or the media attention or the money for these kids. That kind of says it all to me.

      • Ursula says:

        Had she really believed that her kids were panicky and scared at the thought of returning to Monaco she would have booked a seat on the next plane over and assured them with her presence that things would be fine. Instead she stayed behind in NY and shopped for new jeans. So she will never convince me that this is at all about the well being of those kids. It is all about Kelly and her entire behavior strikes me like the temper tantrum of a 2 year old. The less they get what they want the louder they scream. Best to ignore her and move on.

  19. NewWester says:

    Somehow I get the sense a book or movie/reality show deal is on the horizon. Kelly does not act much lately and the money she was awarded will not be enough for her “Hamptons” lifestyle.
    We have not heard the last from her

    • Elliott says:

      If this continues much longer she is going to get sued for slander, libel, etc by him. He has been very careful but he now has basically full custody. I hope his maintenance agreement has a stipulation that she can’t continue to slander him.

  20. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    The one thing that always gets me about this case is the people that come out to defend her.

    Of course they have the right to their opinion, it’s just interesting how much some people defend a mother/woman even when her actions are negative and unacceptable.

    It makes me wonder about the dynamic of women: a child ALWAYS needs his/her mother, a woman can NEVER be abusive. Women aren’t infallible, or is it on some level that women are perceived to be so harmless that it doesn’t matter?

    If this man had the rap sheet of Kelly’s actions he’d likely be in jail right now, but for her many want to sweep it under the rug. “Oh so what if she kidnapped her kids and refused to send them back. So what if she lied and went against court orders?”

    Really? That’s not healthy.

    • CK says:

      I don’t get how anyone can argue that the kids need their mother and their father as an excuse for why Kelly should get custody when she’s the only one that has attempted to alienate the kids since the birth of their daughter to the refusal to send them back. She refused to help her ex get his Visa back, she refused to turn over their passports, she even refused to put the father on the birth certificate. She does not what the father to be apart of their lives and she has spent the last few years trying to make that fantasy a reality.

    • Aren says:

      A long time ago I read about how many mothers who murder their kids get away with it, because the system is not ready to admit that a mother can do something like that, so the deaths are labeled as an accident.
      It’s very sad because most people forget that it’s the children they have to protect, not the parents.

      • lower-case deb says:

        on the flip side, there are also many mothers who are being prosecuted for “failure of protecting” simply because they managed not to die protecting their children from death under their spouse/lover’s abusive treatment. it definitely chilled me to think that, not only the abuser gets a lighter sentence or even go scott free, the mother has to hear/feel something along the lines of “if you didn’t die, you haven’t done enough” irregardless of her own mental/physical capacity at the time of her child’s death.

    • claire says:

      I think those people that come out to defend her are not at all aware of the actual facts of the case. They’re aware of the idea, and the fairy tale that Kelly has been spinning. That’s all.
      I followed a Facebook article about this once. It was a People mag post, I think. Hundreds of comments. I couldn’t believe the comments. People were spouting the most ridiculous untruths about this, mostly just repeating Kelly or her lawyer’s lies. Other commenters would post the court docs that outright proved they were lies but they wouldn’t care. It was either kids should always have their moms, ‘Murica rhetoric or refusal to acknowledge.

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      It is also pretty sexist and unjust. Court orders apply to both parents, and both should be held equally accountable under the law. Your gender should not matter.

  21. Size Does Matter says:

    I find the support order interesting. She essentially lost custody yet he’s ordered to pay her six times what my ex pays me to support two kids I have primary custody of. One percent problems.

  22. Maum says:

    It seems people who defend her don’t actually know any of the facts of the case.
    All they say is ‘kids should be with their mother’ and ‘American citizens’.

    (incidentally the judge has also ruled that Giersch can now apply for German passports for the kids so it seems they didn’t have legal German citizenship until now).

    • Lurknomore says:

      Passports are a way of showing citizenship, not a means to gain it. I’m British by birth, yet don’t hold a UK passport, still I’m British, same as all the Americans who have never got a passport, they’re still Americans.
      Normally both parents have to sign for a minor’s passport, so the judge is allowing DG the legal right to get them their German passports without needing KR to co-operate.

      Was so pleased to find the sanity of here, rather than all the pro-kelly articles etc. Although more and more commentators are pro the kids (so be default pro Daniel), which is very good to see.

      • Maum says:

        Sorry that’s what I meant (I’m also double nationality/birthplace confusion). What I meant is that the kids will be able to travel through Europe more easily.
        Presumably she wasn’t allowing them to have a German passport which meant they needed a visa to live in Monaco unlike the rest of their European family (father/grandmother).
        It also meant different queues at custom etc.

        Basically a petty pain in the arse for the father.

      • Lurknomore says:

        Hi Maum
        Gotcha. :-)
        I’m hoping the fact they’re German via their dad was enough for Monaco to not need a visa, it’d be really annoying if he had to jump even more hoops due to KR. :-(
        If all these years they’ve had to do the different queues and extra hoops because of no proof (that’s ‘red tape’ acceptable) that they’re also EU nationals then that’s another reason to not like KR.
        Hoping DG can get their German passport fast, so no having to deal with that any more!

      • abby says:

        Not only allowing the children to travel more easily but that last paragraph states that Kelly tended to hold onto the kids US passports, which would cause the father problems traveling with them or simply proving their identities.
        I guess her claim is that he might abduct the kids but that argument lost its sting after her actions this summer.

        Really, I cannot know what she was thinking by defying the courts this summer (yeah I know she’s done it because but this time was brazen and public) because all she did was hand the father and his lawyers and the judge everything to side against her.

      • Lurknomore says:

        Hi Loulou,
        That’s sad that they’ll have never been legally able to see their paternal homeland.
        I really hope that DG is finally able to get them their German passports, that the German bureaucracy will take note of the Monoco judge and allow them passports without KR’s signature.

        Hi Vauvert

        Yeah too many people think ‘mom is best’, I’ve seen otherwise with a couple of people close to me. When I heard about this case over the summer (KR was a regular in a few shows I enjoyed not GG), it didn’t make sense so I looked up the court docs and then it did.

        I’m not a parent because I have a 50/50 chance of passing on a crippling illness that can only be tested for after you’re born. I’m not in a financial position to adopt, so I can’t talk as a mother, except I ‘loved’ my possible genetic kids enough not to have them. Still I think I’d love my theoretical children enough to share them with the father be he genetic or adoptive.

        (P.S: sorry if not making complete sense, am unwell and using online as a distraction. Although now with a migraine kicking in that’s not such a good idea. :-(
        Enjoy your day everyone. :-) )

    • LouLou says:

      They did, the children are automatically German citizens when they have a German parent. The other parent has to consent to get the legal paperwork done to get the passports. She might be still able to withhold her signature to get the passports. Btw he could never take his kids legally to Germany without German passports, so I guess they were never able to visit his home country before

      • Zip says:

        “Btw he could never take his kids legally to Germany without German passports, so I guess they were never able to visit his home country before”

        I’m not sure about this one. Monaco is not a Schengen-state but since it is so close to France the same rules apply somehow. That means the kids would not need a passport, a simple ID card for children would do.

      • LouLou says:

        I kinda phrased it awkward, here are the rules kids and parents have to have the same passports when they travel into Germany. So American Mum, American kids all ok, but German dad and American kids not ok. The least it’s fines about 10,000 euros the worst is that they get turned around.

    • vauvert says:

      I think that finally many people are seeing her for who she really is after the summer shenanigans and her defying the judge, not bringing the kids to court until directly ordered to do so.
      I know she will still have supporters based on the idea that her mother rights trump anything. As a loving mother all I can say is that I would have acted the exact opposite of Kelly in order to prevent this outcome. I am not sure whether she is just not intelligent, or simply delusional, or whether she truly did not really care about actual custody but used this legal fight for press and to try and get more money out of Daniel (or both), but something weird is definitely going on with her.
      A parent with the children’s best interests at heart does not try to strip the other parent of custody, does not try to alienate the children from the other parent, does not advocate for strangers to kidnap her kids. All those actions smack of lunacy.
      Based on the facts we know, he has been reasonable, generous in regards to money, has tried to co-parent and tried to ensure a peaceful relationship. In her place any normal mother would have been grateful and pleased and would have cooperated to ensure that the effect of the divorce are minimized.
      Heck, she should have never gotten his visa revoked and I bet they would all still live in LA on Daniel’s dime a few houses apart. The reason they are on separate continents today is 100% due to her. So yes, sad for the kids but perhaps this was the best outcome given who Kelly is.

      • swack says:

        I don’t get it either. I divorced after 25 years and my children were adults and I told them that they had to make their own relationship with their dad and I would not interfere. I also made sure I never said anything against him (and still don’t), even when people have asked me questions about him.

      • Crumpet says:

        Very nice summary of her actions and their consequences. She appears to thrive on conflict and craziness and that is NOT a good atmosphere for a child.

  23. notasugarhere says:

    The document states that she’s getting 1500 euros per child per month for maintenance and schooling. Depending on the cost of their private school in France, it may be that the majority of the money really DOES go to the school costs. If she tries to use that money to pay for an apartment in NYC, where the children can no longer visit her, I’m sure the opposite side would call her on it.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ notasugarhere

      Thanks for that clarification. Hopefully that is the case and the money actually goes to helping to pay for the kids’ expenses and not for her solo Hampton lifestyle.

      Hopefully Kelly does not ‘forget’ to send the school her part of the tuition payments. I have a feeling Daniel is going to get screwed by this arrangement in the long run in terms of Kelly having a million excuses as to why she won’t pay for this or that for the kids.

  24. Andrea says:

    I never understood if she really wanted to be near her children, why she didn’t move to Monaco? Clearly her career meant more to her than her children.

  25. HK9 says:

    Thanks to those who posted the court documents regarding this case on previous threads, there is a blow by blow account of Kelly and her shenanigans. It doesn’t matter what we think, those children are going to read those documents and find out from a neutral source what the truth of the situation really is. What’s she going to do then-blame her ex?

    Kelly needs to find work in Europe to be closer to her children. People do it all the time and in my opinion, she should do the same.

  26. Jayna says:

    I kept an open mind for quite a while, feeling the truth was in the middle and blame on both sides quite possibly, or at the least not completely black and white. But I read the judge’s ruling back three years ago with the statement of facts, or whatever it’s called, and then watched her behavior for years now escalating into the absurd.

    I do believe she has spent all of her money because she loves and wants her children back. I don’t believe it’s for show.

    BUT I believe she has narcissistic personality disorder and is delusional and vindictive and did try to cut the father out of the children’s lives years ago when they shared custody, and her actions led to him losing his visa and her behavior during their divorce with him ended up with him getting them in France/Monaco because of her continual efforts at alienation, and her further actions have led to her now losing liberal visitation in the U.S. She listens to none of her attorneys and hires hacks that follow her lead, and this is where it’s gotten her, now having to go overseas to see her kids because she is seen as a risk. Her actions are erratic.

    She did all of this to herself and to her children.

    • abby says:


      I also truly think that Kelly loves her children but in the way only a narcissist can love someone. I too read the court documents – from not informing Giersch of Helena’s birth and refusing the court orders (multiple times) to put the father’s name on her birth certificate. Her duplicity in her lawyers actions in calling the State Department to have his visa revoked (all documented that it was her lawyer who called). Every act since to alienate the children from their father. And then this summer, with the ugly insinuations and near abduction.
      There is a reason that court after court (CA, NY and Monaco) has eventually ruled against her.
      She has changed lawyers a number of times, which suggests to me that in addition to running out of money, she also doesn’t listen to their advice and they have to walk away.

      Kelly may have some sway in US public opinion with her TV appearances, etc. but Giersch was smart. He hired excellent lawyers and followed their advice. Even Kelly cannot complain about the stability or quality of the home and family life he and his parents provide for the children. The father has made minimal press statements, usually through his lawyers.
      Kelly, on the other hand, has completely lost the plot.

      If I were Kelly Rutherford (I would have tried to coparent but nevermind that), I would be using some of my settlement to purchase one of those language software programs or get a tutor. I would start learning French and German (maybe even Spanish or Italian)) immediately and relocate to France or some EU country nearby. Find work doing anything legal. Monaco may be a little out of her budget but there are other countries nearby where you do not need to be a millionaire and she could see her kids far more frequently than now. That’s not perfect certainly but she could see them every other weekend, which is similar to what many parents who live in the US have.

      Anyway, all the best to Hermes and Helena.

      • swack says:

        She could have lived there but she turned down his offer to buy her a place that she could live in. She just keeps shooting herself in the foot.

      • Jwoolman says:

        She already speaks French. She could find things to do in Europe for the short time her kids are children. She could do a variety of independent projects. It has never made sense that she would rather waste a fortune on lawyers when she could be with her kids so easily. Both parents were rich when all this started.

    • Keaton says:

      Yep I completely agree with this take @Jayna. I also suspect good legal counsel would have encouraged her to co-parent a long time ago. She likely *hired* people that would do exactly what she wanted to do. I’m amazed that no family or friends were able to get through to her and help her see the error of her ways.

      • Jwoolman says:

        Somebody managed to convince her at the last minute to get to that infamous court hearing last August when she was supposed to bring the kids but didn’t. She was not dressed for court. She was wearing very casual clothes and dirty sneakers. She certainly had not planned to show up as ordered by the judge when she got dressed that morning. She might have been planning to take the kids out of the city to hide them better. If I can figure that out- so can any judge.

  27. DEB says:

    I was hoping this would happen. Obviously the European courts have made a decision that will LEAST disrupt the children’s lives. Well done, Monaco. All she has done is shot herself in the foot (big-time) and made herself look like hell. Her biggest f*ck-up was refusing to return them to their father after their visit here despite the court order. How arrogant. Let her carry on like a mad woman, lol.

  28. The Original Mia says:

    Good. She’s a narcissist, who only cared about winning against her ex. If she truly had those kids’ well-being in mind, she would have swallowed her anger and vindictiveness and gotten along with Daniel.

  29. Anotherjen says:

    He seems very levelheaded, she on the other hand is a typical wacktress.

  30. Dibba says:

    Hideous earrings.

  31. Ollie says:

    Neither of the parents seems to be a bad parent, Kelly just… i don´t get it.
    Kelly handled this so bad…it´s unbelievable. Every law suit, every step was just so stupid! Who goes to court because of potty training? That´s irrational.
    Why was the original US 50/50 ruling that bad, Kelly? Why was co-parenting no option? I don´t get it. What a waste of time (happy childhood years with her kids are gone forever!) and money.
    She could have lived a rich, comfortable life with her kids in NY! I bet without all her s#t her ex would still mainly live in NY and the kids would likely live with her most of the time.

    Kelly made it worse and worse. Why did no one talk to her? Family, friends? Psychology help? Voice of reason?! Her lawyers just feeded the beast for PR and gave Kelly extremely bad legal advice.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      She may have acted against the advice of her lawyers. I doubt any attorney would have advised her to keep those kids longer than the visitation period or to refuse to bring them to court in defiance of a court order. They would face disciplinary action

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        How differently this case could have been if Kelly had actually cooperated and effectively co-parented with Daniel for the past few years instead of fighting him in court, badmouthing him and the judges, and flouting the law at every turn. But that story would not have been in Vanity Fair nor would it have resulted in so many TV interviews…

  32. QQ says:

    i’m wearing Black today as befitting an American Mom mourning period… also Good News Kids! the Pale ranty lady with no eyebrows all in white doesn’t get to bug out on you no more!

  33. Whitney says:

    Hopefully the limited contact with their mom and on their dad’s own turf, so to speak, will lead to more stability for the kids, especially since their mother is the very definition of unstable.

  34. Canadian Becks says:

    Does Kelly strike anyone as a “Let the small stuff slide” kind of person? No? Me neither.

    The fact that not one whisper has been said of Daniel breaching his court-ordered obligations should say volumes about how carefully this father has been treading.

    Some have been denigrating that Daniel was obliged to financially provide for “only” 6 trips a year. The fact was that, at the time, they were essentially sharing 50/50 custody. In theory, she had them about half the time. I understand that the reality was not quite so, chiefly due to their schooling schedules. I believe the court-mandated obligations that Daniel pay for 6 trips was the Court’s attempt to address that. They were being fair by ensuring that the parent who must travel to the children did not suffer undue financial hardship.

    The fact that not a whisper has been said of Daniel breaching his court-ordered obligations to provide Kelly with the plane tickets, and car service, and housing is remarkable. I’ve read the original ruling, and frankly, the conditions that detailed all that Daniel had to put in place to allow Kelly to take these trips, really struck me as highly onerous to him. There were minimum sums he had to deposit, made available to her so she could purchase her tickets, minimum days he had to email her with details of the car he was providing for her use, information about the living arrangements he set up for her, etc.

    Like him or not, agree or not with how things are shaking out, the fact is this father has consistently complied. If he had, at any time, failed to cross one t or dot one i, you can bet Kelly and her lawyers would have trumpeted it to high heaven. We never did hear of any mis-steps; it’s fair to say he followed everything to the letter. In fact, I speculate he was probably more generous than he was obliged to be.

    How you feel about Kelly And Daniel probably affects whether you agree with the decisions made with this latest ruling. For me, I accept that the various Family Courts have all tried to live up to their mandate, which is to act in the best interests of these minor children.

    He may have the kids, but his is not an enviable life….the man is walking on eggshells every day of his life until those kids turn 18.

    • Juliette says:

      From what I have seen, Daniel has gone out of his way to encourage a relationship between Kelly and her children. There were pictures once of them (he & the children) meeting her at the airport. The kids had signs saying “Best mommy” or something with balloons and he was there with them smiling away. Despite all the mud slinging from her he really seems to be trying to do what’s best for the kids and to take the highroad.

      She on the other hand is her own worst enemy.

    • truthSF says:

      @CANADIAN BECKS , this is why Kelly and het lawyers are going nuts. Because no matter how many times they want to trap Daniel in a lie/shaddy situation, they can’t.

      • Canadian Becks says:

        Yes, I strongly agree. But at what cost? Giersch probably lives a life where he can never truly know peace. Always anticipating the next big legal assault from Kelly. Anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of any court action knows the sinking feeling of your peace of mind being stolen from you.

        The average co-parenting units know to occasionally give and take, sometimes bending the rules, sometimes giving or picking up the slack. Im sure there is none of that here. Daniel must always be on guard, making sure he is so far above approach that she can’t seize on anything. What a way to live!

        I pray he stays healthy and strong so he can always be there for his kids. They need him more than they can ever know.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Canadian Becks +100


      • Canadian Becks says:


        Kelly wanted so badly to get dirt on Daniel that she spent $86,249.85 on a P.I. back in 2010. The man sued her when she left him hanging for $58,00. The lawsuit became part of public records and it was revealed that, at $65/hr, he had spent more than 1,300 hours spying on Daniel.

        What did she get for that $$? Not a thing. The only thing she submitted via her lawyers was that Daniel had a pool cover that she felt was dangerous to Hermes. Based on her accusation, an independent party was sent to evaluate and reported back to the courts that the accusation was without merit.

        1,300 hours of covert surveillance and she got nothing on him.

  35. Liz says:

    She’s disgusting.

  36. KCAT says:

    This is sad

  37. Izzy says:

    Ladies, Kylie is obviously either a troll or actually Kelly. Let’s not feed the trolls, shall we?

    I am DELIGHTED with this outcome. The way this woman abused our court system, her kids and her ex, gave me a rage stroke at times.

  38. maggie says:

    Idiot for not vaccinating her children. That’s a crime in my books.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ maggie

      I agree with you that her being against vaccination is horrible.

      Part of me thinks that the reason she’s against the vaccinations is if the children get sick in Daniel’s care, then she might think she can use that to smear him as a father. Is it too far out to think this? Nope. She’s gone to hell and back painting him as a terrible person and father, regardless that there is no evidence of it. If her kids get sick from lack of vaccinations, she’ll get the proof she wants. Is that too psychotic a label to put on her? I think not. I don’t think she’s stupid, but I know she’s vicious.

      It’s terrible not to vaccinate the kids, especially in these days when there is so much travel between countries, you don’t know what disease is going to come from who knows where.

      • Alice too says:

        For the record, it can also be justification for a French school to refuse to take the kids, and I suspect that this was likely the reason she refused to let them be vaccinated. She would have tried to use that as ammunition against the father, I suspect, had that happened.

    • Sara says:

      Well its not a crime so find a more important cause like pollution of our air, food, and water. Your children will thank you.

      • Tarsha says:

        Well, it certainly should be a crime (cannot believe I am agreeing with maggie on something). Imo not vaccinating is neglect and abuse. There is nothing more important than your child’s health.

      • Bread and Circuses says:

        Measles kills 1 to 2 out of every 1000 people who gets it, and leaves another 1 with permanent brain damage.

        Getting vaccinated, on the other hand, is so safe they can’t even get an accurate number on how many bad reactions occur. Somewhere less than one out of every 25 million vaccinations, at any rate.

        Your kids will NOT thank you for failing to protect them (and their school-mates, and their elderly relatives) from preventable, deadly diseases.

      • Sara says:

        Your opinion means nothing. The law thus far says its not a crime unless you live in CA. BTW, have we heard of any parents being prosecuted for not vaccinating in CA? It will be interesting to see how they deal with that. I guess many will either move or home school so I guess even then it won’t be a crime if you follow their rules.

  39. Miss M says:

    Someone finally put a stop on her crazy vindictive @s$

  40. Eru says:

    How can any person be this stupid? This is Lohan level of idiocy.

  41. Lakeridge says:

    The only winners in all of this are the lawyers.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I think the children are the winners, as they can continue to live a peaceful life with their father out of the spotlight.

      • minx says:

        I agree. They live in a beautiful, safe country; they are probably getting good educations. Their father and his family will take excellent care of them. Sometimes the good guys do win.

    • justagirl says:

      Yes, the lawyers are the only winners in any nasty custody situation. And with the comments in this thread accusing Kelly of posting, I wouldn’t be surprised if Daniel or someone close to him is as well.

  42. Jillybean says:

    So no one will know the truth really of this situation. But the children will be able to look back and see historical documentation of what their mother did to keep/ have custody of them… Regardless of she is crazy or not. Atleast the divorced parents are fighting for the custody TO HAVE these kids….

  43. Jenny says:

    This woman makes my skin crawl. Feel so sorry for her ex-husband and the children that got saddled with her for a so called mother.

  44. Sara says:

    You know, as nasty as everyone claims she has been, I still don’t think that it is good to keep children from their mother and still can not fathom that any court could rule this. It is cruel imo. Unless the women is somehow unfit ( I don’t think this is the case or they wouldn’t have been able to see her in US), this is not fair.

    • Jwoolman says:

      The court isn’t keeping the children from their mother. She just can no longer have them by herself in the USA, since she has refused to send them home to their father twice and the last time violated a direct order from a judge to produce the children in court. She can see them all she wants in Monaco and France, as has always been the case. She just can’t remove them from France/Monaco and she can’t hang on to their U.S. passports anymore, and also can no longer block them from getting proper German passports (they have dual citizenship). She also can’t block vaccination of the children according to local laws. Otherwise, decisions concerning the children still must be made by both parents.

      The judge was understandably concerned about her as an abduction risk because of her actions over the past couple of years. She even suggested on TV that some “American patriot” kidnap her children for her …. Really, that would set alarm bells ringing in any court.

    • Tarsha says:

      If you read these posts, you will see that she is very much so, an unfit mother. She really should have her parental rights terminated, for the safety of those innocent children.

    • Katherine says:

      Not cruel, she is completely unfit. Giving birth does not make someone a good mother, just like being a woman does not mean she should get special treatment a man would be crucified for if the roles were reversed. Such double standards.