Kelly Rutherford’s appeal to Monaco custody ruling denied by NY Appeals court

The Daily Mail reported yesterday that Kelly Rutherford’s final ditch appeal to the Monaco custody ruling awarding sole custody to her ex husband, Daniel Giersch, has been denied. A US Court of Appeals has ruled that they would not hear the case. This was thought to be Kelly’s last attempt to regain custody of her children after years of litigation, with several courts denying jurisdiction over the case. She’s tried multiple legal strategies to get her case heard at various levels, including petitioning the White House, which was denied as it was an ongoing court case and prior to that trying to make a federal case out of it, which was also dismissed.

Kelly has spoken on Capitol Hill, likening her case to international parental abduction when she’s the only one who has ever kept the children against court orders (although to be fair she hadn’t abducted them yet at that point, she’d only threatened to do so several times), and she also started her own nonprofit “Children’s Justice Campaign” to bring awareness to her case and get celebrities on her side. She’s continually used the press to further her agenda, with Vanity Fair publishing a pro-Kelly article just this summer.

At this point even celebrity-friendly People Magazine has called this a predictable outcome, however, and they even quote a NY lawyer who says this is all Kelly’s doing. “Kelly Rutherford has only herself to blame,. She is the reason why she lost custody of these kids.” To those of us with even a mild amount of interest in this case, that pretty much sums it up.

Kelly hasn’t directly responded to losing custody, but she has posted several Instagram messages which allude to the issues she’s having. To me this suggests that some kind of gag order is in force, because she never seems to pass up an opportunity to play the victim.

@cleowade ❤️🙏

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

Kelly will be able to visit her children over the Christmas holidays in Monaco. While she can never bring them back to the US with her, she gets €3,000 a month from her ex husband to visit the children for half their school breaks.

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

95 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford’s appeal to Monaco custody ruling denied by NY Appeals court”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. littlemissnaughty says:

    But she’s an AMERICAN, doesn’t that count for anything???

    • Tash says:


    • Tania says:

      Her kids have dual-citizenship and are german just like their father.

      • LAK says:

        It’s a joke.

        Kelly in all seriousness has used this as a defence and explanation for her actions.

        And she has a bad of fans who support her on that fact alone, damn any other facts!!!

      • NUTBALLS says:

        We’ve all be laughing (even us Yanks) at her argument that their American citizenship somehow trumps their German citizenship.

    • anne_000 says:

      It was American courts that gave Daniel residential custody and kept upholding this ruling.

      All the Monaco court did was uphold the American court’s decision and deal with Kelly’s child-kidnapping strategy.

    • DrM says:

      Obviously NOT which is the way it should be. No sympathy for this head case of a woman. Kids are much, much better off with their father.

  2. truthSF says:

    Dear World?! Narcissism overload, this one.

    • CTgirl says:

      Yep. And combine that narcissism with an inability to strategize or connect the dots and you get this train wreck. I think she somehow thought that always wearing white or buff colors would make people equate her with purity. Total fail.

    • Izzy says:

      Dear Kelly: The World is sick of your sh!t. Apparently, you CAN’T do better.

      • Cheryl says:

        Is that her hand-writing? I think she is truly suffering from some mental disorder. I got chills reading that.

  3. Coco says:

    AN AMERICAN CITIZEN for goodness sakes!

  4. astrid says:

    Poor thing! Now she won’t get any more attention. Kids are better off with their father.

  5. lilacflowers says:

    Really would love to hear the reasoning behind thinking that the NY Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over a Monaco court decision.

    There are rules, Kelly, even here in “Murica.” Try following them some time.

    • LAK says:

      I was confused by why she filed in NYC when the ruling was in Monaco.

      Then again, these are AMERICAN CITIZENS with an AMERICAN MOTHER.


      • lilacflowers says:

        Because “Murica!” It really isn’t clear to me whether the filing was in the NY Supreme Court, which is actually a trial court and not the highest state court in NY, or the New York Court of Appeals, which IS the highest state court in New York, or the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd circuit, which is a federal court. Not sure the media reporting on these stories know the difference. But in any case, courts here in the US would either have no jurisdiction or very limited jurisdiction over a foreign court decision. But Kelly doesn’t seem to think the rules, not even rules written into things like the Constitution, apply to her.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I thought that when she appealed, she was appealing in Monaco. How did she think that a US court would assume jurisdiction over a foreign case? Even if they had gone against what every other US and foreign court has ruled and took the case, how could it be enforced?

        I can’t imagine that she’ll end her fight here. She seems to have been grasping at straws and will continue to do so.

        ETA: just saw Bearcat’s commentary below. If she can try and appeal to the Supreme Court, I expect that she will. Not that they’ll give it more than a passing glance, since the facts are pretty clearly against her.

      • bluhare says:

        Ha, LAK!!! :)

    • swack says:

      Thank you! I said that yesterday on the other thread. Just wasting her money and the courts time. I’m not even sure NY can rule on this as Kelly never did a mirror order of her one from CA. One reason the decision was made in Monaco is because David got a mirror order there.

  6. Julaine says:

    Even in America the courts are focused on the health, safety and emotional wellbeing of the children. Sometimes that means that that child(ren) is better off living with their father in another country. Maybe someday Kelly will understand that. Or not. But hopefully her children will.

  7. BearcatLawyer says:

    Ok, I realize that Kelly and her insane “lawyer” Wendy Murphy have made this case incredibly complicated, but yesterday’s order was NOT from the NY Supreme Court.

    Last summer Kelly via Wendy Murphy filed a petition in NY *federal* district court arguing among other things that her children had been deported from the U.S. and that Monaco had no jurisdiction over her or the children as U.S. citizens. The federal district judge dismissed that petition the same day, stating that the case properly belonged in family court – not federal court. Kelly appealed the federal district judge’s decision. Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – the federal appeals court having jurisdiction over New York, Connecticut,and Vermont – issued an order denying her request to appeal and upholding the federal district judge’s decision to dismiss. This order said that Kelly had not established any legitimate reasons for an appeal.

    In theory Kelly could attempt to appeal this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the expense is great and her chances are nil. So in all likelihood this was her last ditch attempt in *federal* court at least.

    This federal court petition also had nothing to do with the recent ruling in the custody case in Monaco. The Monegasque court ruled a few weeks ago; the Second Circuit decision was issued on December 16th. The federal court petition was filed because the CA family court ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction in the custody case because Kelly was now resident in NY. When Kelly tried to get the NY family court to assume jurisdiction over the custody case, she was shot down because she had not timely sought a mirror order and Monaco had jurisdiction since Daniel and the children are all resident there. Kelly sought federal court intervention in both CA and NY to force the state courts to reassume jurisdiction. Both attempts failed, as evidenced by this order.

    • lilacflowers says:

      Thanks for the clarification, BearcatLawyer. I explained some of the court differences above and how the reporting on this seemed to have her in different court systems, likely due to reporters unfamiliar with the state and federal court systems and the confusion that New York itself generates by using terms in ways different from the common usage, but I didn’t feel like taking the time to actually go look at which court had issued the decision. I bet she will try to bring this to the Supremes. And they won’t even glance at it.

    • Little Darling says:

      As always love your commentary Bearcat. ❤️

    • NUTBALLS says:

      Yes, thank you again BearcatLawyer, for your insight into this case.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      Thanks for hitting us with the knowledge Bearcat! (Also love your name)

    • Celebitchy says:

      The confusion is because the US Court of Appeals ruling on the Daily Mail site states that it’s Kelly vs. the respondent, Supreme Court of the State of NY. I changed that wording thanks for explaining!

    • notasugarhere says:

      BearCat, thank you once again for your generous sharing of your legal knowledge. I wouldn’t put it past her to appeal to the Supreme Court as well as appealing the Monaco ruling in Monaco.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ BearCatLawyer

      Thank you very much.

  8. GingerCrunch says:


  9. Sam says:

    What a loon. Her next step will probably be to petition the Hague or some kind of Human Rights Commission or the UN. Wait, you know it’s coming. She can’t stop because then she might have to admit that she caused this.

  10. Terra says:

    Family court is rarely about the well being of the children. Watch divorce corp….family court is more like the Wild Wild West.

    • anon33 says:

      Because Divorce Court isn’t a reality show in itself where they specifically pick out the most jacked up stories to show.

  11. GoodNamesAllTaken says:


  12. Cran says:

    All I can say is Kelly, Kelly, Kelly. In my head I see Woody from Cheers saying this and shaking his head

  13. Talie says:

    Wendy Williams dissected this case and I was surprised that she examined both sides — rare for an American talkshow. She even chastised Kelly for keeping the kids over the summer, violating the court order.

    • LAK says:

      Wendy had a better understanding of the situation than the lawyer hired to explain it.

      The lawyer left so many things out of the case that I assumed she gleamed the facts from people magazine.

  14. Nancy says:

    He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you’re awake…..Kelly got coal in her stocking. Good luck to this dysfunctional family in 2016……especially the kids. Wowzers

  15. that time i didn't care says:

    JESUS. If only she’d kept her cool (and let her baby daddy stay in the US), she’d still have joint custody of her kids and be able to see them all the time. Massive narcissism fail.

  16. Miss M says:

    After 4 years, my eyes will get some rest from rolling off my face.

  17. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Nobody is here for her, smh, that’s what happens when you act a fool across all courts and jurisdictions.

    If she keeps it up pretty soon she’ll be denied any visitation.

    • Jwoolman says:

      The dad seems pretty convinced that the kids should have good contact with their mom, so I doubt that he would cut off visitation. He might have to insist on adult supervision, though.

      The boy is getting old enough that he might be badly affected by her constantly telling them that she’s “fighting for them” – he might realize now that she is trying to keep them away from their dad. She made him very anxious when he was a lot younger and they all were still in the U.S. by blocking visitation from his dad for a month, so anxious he needed therapy I think. The hysterics she’s pulled on Skype and at transitions (all violations of the court orders) must be doing a number on the kids also. At some point that is going to seriously backfire just in regard to the kids’ relationships with her. They may even get to the point where they just don’t want to deal with her anymore. I suspect dad is doing damage control as best he can, trying to put a positive spin on it all as my mother did with my doofus dad’s antics. But at a certain age, kids begin to see what is really going on. They will know that their dad has not been preventing her from being with them and that there is no need to “fight for them”. I wonder how well she will be able to deal with the kids as they become independent thinkers and no longer cute little dolls she can dress up and manipulate.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Jwoolman

        Good point. Considering that Kelly seems to be the type of person who can never admit wrong and seems to want to control everything her way with no give-and-take, as the kids get older, she might start to consider them her adversaries too.

      • LAK says:

        She said on the view, during last summer’s media blitz, that the boy was brainwashed because he told her something along the lines of looking forward to return to Monaco.

        That’s how she’ll handle the kids pulling away from her. In her mind they are brainwashed. It’s the only explanation.

      • Sass says:

        Giersch has had excellent legal representation and he heeded their advice to his and the children’s benefit. Rutherford, however, seemed to think that she could influence the court’s behavior. She had around ten lawyers, one after another. Geirsch had one woman atty throughout plus additional counsel in NY and Europe.

  18. Dani says:

    All I can think is poor kids.

  19. Canadian Becks says:

    Kelly wanted so bad to get dirt on Daniel that she spent $86,249.85 on a Private Investigator back in 2010. The man sued her when she left him hanging for more than $58,000. His lawsuit became part of public records and it was revealed that at $65/hr, he had spent @1,300 hours spying on Daniel.

    What did she get for all that $$$?
    Not a thing. The only thing she submitted via her lawyers was that Daniel had a pool cover that she felt endangered Hermes. Based on her accusation, an independent party was sent to evaluate and his report was included in the court documents as dismissing her claims as baseless.

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

    You just know that this is not the end of it for her. Every move he makes, every decision he makes will be scrutinized by her with a view to accuse him of some trumped-up impropriety. Will the man ever know a moment’s peace between now and when the kids turn 18?

    • Julaine says:

      Wait until Daniel attempts to remarry. The shenanigans seen so far will pale in comparison.

      Another woman co-parenting her children? That’s blasphemy. Why I bet she won’t even be American. Every move Daniel and his (hypothetical) new wife will make will be strenuously objected to.

      • Tammy says:

        I doubt Daniel will remarry… at least not until the kids are older. He is not going to subject his kids to any more emotional stress right now. His focus is solely on the kids, a relationship can wait.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Canadian Becks

      Geez. 1300 hours. She’s a true nutcase.

      It’s too bad Monaco didn’t take away her legal rights to these kids, because she’s always going to look for some way to get back at him, like this anti-vaccination stance.

      • Crumpet says:

        I think this shows the court’s interest is truly for the children and Daniel knows how critical having their mother be a part of their lives is, if it is at all possible. Maybe everyone hopes she will finally take a seat and give up on the histrionics. She won’t, I fear, but one can always hope.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Crumpet

        Yes, the courts try for co-parenting, but I agree that she most likely won’t stop being antagonistic.

    • Canadian Becks says:

      Add that P.I. to the list of people she’s screwed over….when she filed for bankruptcy, he probably ended up with pennies to the dollar.

  20. FUTMZ says:

    Ironically, that fluffy Vagity Fair article was the final nail for her campaign of parental alienation. Meanwhile, she was spotted at 1Oak in New York Wednesday night….. “fighting for her kids”, of course. Curiously, haven’t heard a peep lately from Dan Abrhams, Wendy Murphy….. or Christie Brinkley.

  21. anne_000 says:

    What next? The Hague Court? The UN? The EU? Surely not SCOTUS. They’ll probably dump the case in the circular file rather than even look at it.

    How many ‘NOs’ does it take for Kelly to realize she might just be wrong in this? What’s there to say to her kids when they’re grown? ‘I fought every single day you were alive’ vs ‘I made peace with your dad, you kids, and myself in order for you to have a happier life.’

    • Canadian Becks says:

      And those are such LOADED words.

      “I fought for you” is heavy with implications. She obviously wants to subliminally convince them they are not with whom they are supposed to be, that they need to be “rescued”.

      So damaging to them.

    • Canadian Becks says:

      And it’s worked, maybe? She was interviewed once where she said something to the effect of, “Hermes asks me, ‘Mama, will you ever stop fighting for us?’ and I always say, “I will never stop fighting for you and Helena”. *


      • anne_000 says:

        @ Canadian Becks

        So very true about the heavy implications and its effect. I hope the father and the grandmother can bring some healthy perspective to the kids.

    • Stef Leppard says:

      Dear Kelly,
      MOVE TO MONACO. I’m sure you can find a nice little apartment with the €3,000 a month you are getting from your ex. Then find a nice little job to support you. Then you could see your kids ALL THE TIME. It’s not that hard. I think the fact that you have not yet done this only proves that you do not REALLY desire to spend time with your children. Your motives lie elsewhere…perhaps in “winning”? Think about it, dear.

      –The World

      • minx says:

        Nobody would have to coax me to move to Monaco. A beautiful crime-free country? I’m there.

      • Rafa says:

        Nah, that amount might get a 1 bedroom apt but that’s it. In reality, she’s probably no longer wealthy enough to reside in Monaco. Esp since she wouldn’t be eligible for that support payment if she moved there. Plus, she needs to work & isn’t in a position to be too fussy about where her jobs are.

        And while Rutherford has behaved in a self-defeating way, I am also side-eyeing her lawyer for bad advice. But I don’t think playing the fool about wanting custody should make people jumpy clap that this woman will have limited access to them. It’s not a fact that she’s a terrible mother, it’s just conjecture. And lots of parents go off the rails & act like assholes over custody. It’s wrong but it doesn’t make them evil narcissists either.

      • Alice too says:

        Given the number of lawyers she’s gone through, I suspect that she got rid of the ones who gave her good advice that she either didn’t want to follow or didn’t want to hear.

  22. Original T.C. says:

    She is doing nothing but wasting the court’s time. There has to be a way of stopping her. I really feel bad for her kids and and their father.

    She and Halle Berry should form a support group for famous women who make up lies to get sole custody of their children. Disgusting.

  23. Sirsnarksalot says:

    Your claim that she hasn’t actually abducted the children is inaccurate. She refused to return them at the end of their summer visit. The father was then forced to file in court to have them returned. The court ordered her to appear with them and again she refused to produce them. Only after the court threatened her with far worse punishment did she return them to their grandparent to be brought back to their father. She hasn’t just threatened to abduct them…she actually did it. And for that reason she has lost her custody, which she probably never should have had in the first place.

    • Sunnyside says:

      I think they just meant at that time? Because technically she did abduct the kids twice. Or it could be a reference to Kelly’s threats to disappear or her appeal to get strangers to kidnap her kids.

    • swack says:

      Her holding the children from him came after she spoke on Capitol Hill. That’s what is being referenced.

  24. Amelie says:

    This is sad for everyone involved. The kids, Kelly, and Daniel. I doubt he relishes having full custody, it’s a necessary evil for the kids’ well-being since their mom has gone through this custody fight the wrong way. I’m not sure why Daniel’s visa issues aren’t resolved yet, I know those kinds of things can take awhile to deal with and I’m sure the publicity this case has received hasn’t helped. But hopefully he gets that straightened out. And hopefully Kelly realizes she made her own mess. If she behaves super well and abides by the current custody rules, maybe she’ll get more time with them. She’s exhausted all possibilities at this point. The one thing I will say is that the kids always looked happy with her. They clearly love their mom.

    • anniefannie says:

      If the Visa issues get cleared its because Kelly has finally fessed up that the info she and her lawyers supplied them was false! It’s surprisingly easy to get Visa’s revoked as they’re rarely investigated and the US takes an approach of error on the side of caution.

    • swack says:

      Because of the accusations that were made, from what I understand from others on yesterdays thread, he may have a hard time getting the visa back even if she recants her accusation. Also at this point, he probably doesn’t want to disrupt the children’s lives anymore by pulling them out of school and taking them away from their friends.

      • Lady D says:

        She can also make another surreptitious call to the State Dept. 3 weeks after he arrives and get him booted from the country again. I wouldn’t trust her if I was him

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Lady D

        Good point. If Daniel was allowed to live in the US again and they all got custody moved back to the US, there’s nothing to say the craziness won’t start back up at Square 1 again.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Amelie

      In December of 2012, Kelly and her lawyer told Daniel and his lawyer that if Daniel doesn’t waive his rights to visitation until whatever the judge finally decides, then they will accuse him of kidnapping to the State Department. Her lawyer admitted to making numerous contact with the State Department. Accusations were made that Daniel was involved in gun and drug running in South America, which under the Victory Act is considered terrorism. She also got an investigatory lawyer to come up with some accusation of tax discrepancies by him though she later did not use this in court (probably wasn’t accurate in the first place).

      A month later in January 2013, as Daniel was out of country and went to pick up his renewed visa, which was initially good until April 2014 (iirc), he was told that it was revoked.

      So then the custody judge gave Kelly until the end of 2013 to write an affidavit to help get Daniel’s visa back. Daniel even wrote one up for her to sign, but as the judge wrote in the Statement of Decision, Kelly refused because it included a line stating that she is not adverse to him getting back his visa.

      The judge also gave them until mid-January 2014 to request the court assign an Immigration Expert to help with the visa issue.

      Kelly let both deadlines slip away. Earlier this year, one of her apologists wrote that because she didn’t have a lawyer at the time, she didn’t understand that such options and deadlines existed in the Statement of Decision, even though many layman readers saw and understood it for themselves. And no doubt, Kelly could have paid a lawyer to read it to her, even if only just once, if the matter was so important to her.

      So now the visa issue is moot.

      Daniel now has no obligation to get his visa renewed just to please Kelly. The kids have lived in Monaco half of their lives, and probably most of the years they have actual memory of. They’ve settled down with their father, grandmother, step-grandfather, schools, friends, etc.

      There’s no need to uproot them now just to please Kelly, who has always had generous visitation resources provided by Daniel and lenient visitation privileges all this time anyways. She admitted on TV that she’s visited them at least 80 times since this mess (she created) started.

      It would be very nice of Kelly and would show a sign of emotional growth if she would inform the proper authorities that the accusations made against Daniel were false and that she is in favor of getting his visa back. That might help him in the future. But as Kelly’s strategy seems to have been to have him banned from living in the US and keeping the kids all to her lonesome, she seems to have no motivation to fix Daniel’s visa problem.

    • Ennie says:

      At the moment, with the children having live there it would be uprooting them.
      As for the adults. If it is so “easy” for Daniel to leave Monaco and go live in the USA, then it is the same for the mother. She does not work that much. She must love her Manhattan lifestyle and perks of being a celebvictim. She can go and live in one of those numerous smaller towns near Monaco, and see her children everyday.
      If I were Daniel, I would not ask for an American visa until after the youngest child is 18. God knows what shenanigan would Kelly do if he could go and stay in the USA. Custody fight all over again.

  25. Lex says:

    Imagine if she tried something shady while visiting the kids in Monaco or France and got herself slapped with some charges… which then resulted in her being barred from entering the country!? I can envisage that.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That would be a problem for Giersch. It would mean that she’d start filing lawsuits about how she couldn’t visit her children and they’re not allowed in the US. This whole mess would start over from square one, with Rutherford banned from France/Monaco/EU and Giersch banned from the US.

    • Bearcat Lawyer says:

      One thing very few people think about when they get involved in shady dealings or bad behaviour – whether or not criminal charges are ever filed against them or they are successfully prosecuted – is that other countries may take a dim view of allowing you to enter their terrorities. Example: from what I have read online, Australia and New Zealand have banned the rapper Tyler the Creator and his group Odd Future from entering to perform concerts because their prior statements and behaviour during concerts suggest that they represent “a risk that they may vilify or incite discord, or otherwise represent a danger to the community.” They have not been charged with or convicted of any CRIME, but the immigration authorities in both countries have taken issue with past incidents where the group appeared to encourage concertgoers to commit acts of violence.

      If she truly wishes to maintain her parental rights and access to the children, Kelly would do well to mind her Ps and Qs while in the European Union. If she does not and is subsequently banned from France and Monaco, she might find it quite difficult to gain entry to a neutral third country where the children could at least visit her. Another couple that faces this problem is Teresa and Joe Giudice of “Real Housewives of New Jersey.” Now that they have both been convicted of federal fraud crimes and sentenced to prison time, it will be extremely difficult for Teresa to visit Joe in Italy when he is deported there after completing his U.S. prison term. Even if the Italian government grants her a visa, Teresa might also find it challenging to even travel to Italy since other countries would be well within their rights to bar her from transiting or entry. Other countries will almost certainly ban Joe too, so family vacations overseas are probably off the table as well. In fact, it is very likely that their children will have to travel to Italy on their own in order to see their father after he is deported.

      One thing I have always found very interesting about the allegations that Kelly made against Daniel is that he seemingly has had no difficulties travelling to neutral third countries (Canada, Bahamas) after his O-1 nonimmigrant visa was revoked by the U.S. Since the U.S. rather freely shares information about potential terrorists and criminals with many Commonwealth countries, it leads me to believe that other countries were not particularly concerned about Daniel’s potential for criminality or bad behaviour. Since it appears that Kelly’s attorney only contacted the U.S. authorities to badmouth him, other countries have no reasonable grounds to deny him entry (or alternatively, these foreign governments have conducted their own investigations and have been unable to substantiate the claims made against him to the U.S. authorities).

      The takeaway lesson: be careful whom you marry. Even when allegations are unproven or no criminal charges are ever filed, your life may forever be changed.

      • Robin says:

        Bearcatlawyer, thanks for the info. Couldn’t the State Department go ahead and issue Giersch a visa should he re-apply, even without an affidavit from Rutherford admitting she lied? She’s been completely discredited and there is apparently no evidence that her allegations were true. Why does Kelly have the power with the unretracted lies, to stop Daniel’s getting a visa?

      • NUTBALLS says:

        The thing that bothers me about the terrorism charge though is that if an accusation is all that is needed to get his Visa revoked, it seems that people would be using it left and right to get rid of those they want out of the country. I can understand if the Feds would take a charge like that seriously enough to revoke a Visa pending an investigation, but to leave no grounds for an innocent party to appeal it based on lack of evidence and clear their name seems at odds with how our criminal justice system works. Guilty even if proven innocent?? It doesn’t make sense to me that Daniel couldn’t appeal this to a higher authority, claiming libel, if it weren’t true.

        Is it possible he’s not choosing to use whatever means he has to clear his name because as it would likely lead to more legal trouble if he’s living/working in the US? I’m TeamDaniel, but wondering if there was just enough “evidence” of suspicious activity to cause the revocation.

      • yt says:

        With his original custody of the children in Monaco, there was no reason for Daniel to try to get a new visa. All he had to do was bide his time because he knew Kelly would never help in getting is visa renewed. He has less problems from Kelly by not being in the U.S.

        He probably cleared the visa problem through the Euro countries immediately so he could travel freely there. The U.S. would probably renew his visa if he submitted the court documentation, but if he could live the U.S., Kelly would be serving him daily with court papers.

        With sole custody and a good life in Monaco, Daniel has no incentive to obtain a U.S. visa now.

        Narcissists do not plan well because they only consider their one way to achieve their goals. They don’t consider variables or the fact that their many lies eventually fail. They do manage to create a lot of chaos for everyone.

      • Alice too says:

        You’re all assuming that he even still WANTS to go back to the States. In his shoes, I would stay far far away until the kids are much older. He’s already had ample proof of the levels of nutjobbery his ex-wife will go to, ample proof that the system can be used against him based on nothing but accusations. Does anyone seriously think that even if he was able to obtain a new visa, tourist or otherwise, that this woman wouldn’t level some sort of trumped up accusations at him, have him arrested at the airport and then attempt to use that to regain custody?

        She’s already claimed that “the kids were frightened to go back to Monaco”, which is about one step away from accusing him of abusing his children. It’s pretty easy to see that one coming from a mile away.

      • LAK says:

        Nutballs: from a johnny foreigner POV, the American border control is draconian.

        There is no leeway for appeals. You simply provide the information that is asked of you, and hope for the best because their default position is that they aren’t obligated to give you a visa even if your record is spotless.

        The smallest infringement or deviation or possibly the mood of the official can result in denial.

        Further to your comment, people do call up and get people deported all the time. It’s the stress of being an immigrant without permanent passport. You have to have everything together so they don’t make an adverse decision about you because once that’s done, it’s really, REALLY hard to get it reversed or have new visa re-issued. And your record is forever tainted. You will always have to explain why you had that visa problem. And that mark will always count against you. It’s never viewed as an innocent mistake, even if it was an innocent mistake. It’s a mark. Period.

        It’s a completely opposite approach to the standard way of justice for citizens. That’s why when they hear that someone has been deported or revoked, they assume that they must have done something terrible or that once explanation is given to clear their name, it’s easy to get a new visa. Life from citizen perspective is very simple. It’s completely the opposite from an immigrant’s perspective.

      • Sixer says:

        Just to second what LAK has said. You can go to any travel forum and find pages upon pages of threads of people who have been denied visas by the US and the process is so authorItarian and secretive that they aren’t even given a reason as to why most of the time.

        It’s such common knowledge that it always comes as a surprise to me that Americans are surprised to discover this, assuming that as their country is a nice, decent one, their visa process will be as effective and decent as they expect it to be. But if you’re American yourself, you’ll rarely come into contact with it so really, why wouldn’t you be surprised?

        Same with us Brits. Because we have a loud anti-immigration minority and free movement of people within the EU, successive governments have tightened up non-EU immigration again and again. Your average Brit would probably die of shock if they were actually aware of the draconian procedures and outright injustices that occur over immigration here.

        In my view, public opinion on these matters makes governments create mighty sledgehammers to crack walnuts.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        @nutballs: immigration proceedings – including visa proceedings – are civil matters. The “innocent until proven guilty” concept does not really apply since the burden of proof in civil proceedings is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt; it is merely “preponderance of the evidence.” This essentially translates into “more likely than not” or “51% wins.”

        The trouble we have in a post-9/11 world is that U.S. immigration officials now can be held personally
        liable if they erroneously allow a terrorist or criminal into the U.S. So as a practical matter, preponderance of the evidence does not really apply. NO consul in the world will risk giving an alleged terrorist or arms dealer a visa. And to be honest, thanks to the PATRIOT Act, Daniel may not even know exactly what Kelly and her lawyer accused him of doing because the consul does not legally have to tell him the specifics, much less turn over any written records the U.S. government has concerning the allegations made against him or any investigation the U.S. government undertook as a result (if there even was an investigation).

        People accuse others of all sorts of things to gain advantages in divorces or immigration cases. We immigration lawyers even have a shorthand phrase for it: “angry spouse letters” because one of the first things a pissed off U.S. citizen spouse does is write a letter to USCIS or visit an USCIS office to b()$& about the evil, criminal, shady non-citizen spouse. Of course USCIS and the State Department recognize that the bulk of these claims are total BS, but…every so often one of them is not. And no one wants to be the person who lets that slip by.

        I suspect the main reason Daniel’s O-1 visa was revoked was because Kelly’s attorney contacted them. It is VERY rare for an attorney to make these kinds of reports to immigration officials, mostly because our ethical obligations typically prevent us from ratting out people and we are not supposed to do stuff like this to gain an unfair advantage in litigation (like divorce proceedings). Her lawyer’s involvement may thus have added an unwarranted air of credibility to the allegations against Daniel. This is also why the CA family court judge was righteously pissed off at Kelly’s attorney’s attempted blackmail of Daniel and the subsequent revocation of Daniel’s O-1 visa.

        As I said in a prior thread, at this point Daniel probably has zero interest in applying for any kind of U.S. visa. If I were his attorney, I would tell him to sit out the next 12 years until Helena is 18. If he were to get even a tourist visa to the U.S., Kelly would just bring more crazy and try to force him to move back stateside. Not worth it!

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Damn, ladies, I had no idea it’s gotten so difficult to obtain visas or keep them for that matter. I really don’t have friends in foreign countries that have tried to come here, hence the ignorance on the subject. Once again, Celebitches be taking me to school…

        I was in banking post-9/11, and I certainly saw the increasing difficulty in getting domestic and foreign accounts opened in the years that followed as countries tried to halt terrorist’s ability to use the banking system. What took me 2 days in 2012, took me three weeks in 2010. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that our immigration officials would make it more difficult to get in here.

        If I were Daniel, I wouldn’t want to risk dealing with his nutty ex until the kids are both over 18, so if he can still do business without his US Visa, good for him. It’s not like Monaco is a bad place to live or anything…

  26. Kori says:

    And the thing is, her whole ‘they’re American citizens help them’ routine has had the very effect of denying them the chance to live in the US for part of the year. I find that sad as it *is* half their heritage. I’m sure their Dad, who seems the much better parent by far, will still expose them to the US heritage but he’s German so it’s not like that his life experience. So good going with that, Kelly. But this was 100% the right decision because she’s nutso.

  27. FLORC says:

    So, she’s allowed to see her kids. She get some maintainance funds to live in Monaco. She’s able to travel for work asost actors do. And if she had custody she would make sure her children could not see their father unless it was all on her terms.
    Is she seriously complaining? When do you just realise this progression of animosity is toxic for the kids that have stability, less pap strolls, and both parents.

    She is selfish. And I was on her side until the facts were explained.

    • Alice too says:

      It was interesting to note in the judge’s ruling that the father was attempting to have any money paid for pap photos put into a fund for the kids. Clearly, he was trying to remove her motivation for exposing the kids to that and give them their privacy back. Also of note was the fact that she had apparently refused to sign off on the kids getting German passports. Since she was holding their US ones, that would have had the effect of making it impossible for those kids to travel anywhere outside of Europe with their Dad.

      I’m wondering if it’s going to occur to her at some point that her own actions have now effectively exiled the kids from the US until they are old enough to travel on their own, and if she’ll finally do something about negating the accusations she and her lawyer made about him to the State Department. Until their Dad can travel to the US, those kids won’t be either.