Kelly Rutherford to Elle: ‘I hope that this story will be an example to others’


Kelly Rutherford is breaking her silence after losing custody of her children to her ex husband, Daniel Giersch, following a ruling this November in Monaco. She covers the Romanian edition of Elle, and judging from the quotes that have been released so far, Kelly throws some shade but only speaks in general terms about her custody battle. She makes it sound like an epic battle in which she’s serving as a martyr for the cause, which is how she’s framed it to the press for years. The fact is that she kidnapped her kids and made a series of moves attempting to cut her children’s father out of their lives before she finally lost custody. Here’s what she said:

“Children need both parents. You do not want to make them suffer. I hope that this story be an example to others. … Now, I want them to be happy, to know that they are loved. No matter how long it takes this, I want them to know the truth.”

In the Elle article, Rutherford recalls her own parents’ divorce and how she realized if her mother was happy, “everything was okay in the world.”

“I know that if I find my peace, they will benefit,” she says of Hermes and Helena. ” talk about love because I hope that is what will make them stronger. When all this is over, I hope that they will look back and have the impression that it was not as bad as it was, actually. I do not want them to feel everything. There are good people and generous and funny.”

Moving forward, Rutherford says she hopes to use her story to raise political awareness of cases like hers and continue to work with her advocacy organization, the Children’s Justice Campaign.

“Perhaps activists will increase because of this situation,” she says. “I hope that something good will come of it.”

[From People]

I have my doubts that the Children’s Justice Campaign was little more than a front to collect money to fund her custody battle, but she’s going to play that up now. When Kelly spoke at a Congressional briefing this summer, she made her case sound like international child abduction. Of course Kelly is the one who went on to kidnap the children and had to be court ordered to return them. Kelly said this June that “I was particularly excited to hear several members of Congress say that they are proposing new federal legislation that will hold judges accountable and stop them from forcing American children to leave their own country.” She also advised women against marrying foreigners, adding “I see a lot of young women here today who will probably never marry a foreigner after hearing these stories. They’re cute. The accents are amazing — but they’re expensive accents.” So when she says she hopes to serve as an example, that’s what I think she means – don’t marry or have kids with a foreign guy.

Kelly now gets €3,000 a month to visit her kids and has been posting Instagram photos of her vacations in Switzerland, Italy and France. She’s probably making some cash selling her story too, but if she tries to write a book or a screenplay it’s likely that Giersch will shut that down fast.

Kelly has posted a bunch of vague quotes on Instagram which reference her situation. She’s probably still under gag order for her case but she’s going to say what she can to get us to talk about her.

@elleromania wearing @anilarjandas ring ❤️

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

This is so beautiful…

A photo posted by @kellyrutherford on

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

112 Responses to “Kelly Rutherford to Elle: ‘I hope that this story will be an example to others’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Don't kill me I'm French says:

    Say me that Elle Romania did some research and wrote an equitable article and not just ” poor Kelly”

  2. lisa says:

    who is in the top photo? it looks like jessica lange crossbred with caitlyn jenner.

    • The Eternal Side-Eye says:

      THANK YOU, all I see is Jessica Lange, and what a weird-ass photo shoot to go with her poor Mommy media tour.

    • minx says:

      I thought Jenner, too.

    • Pumpkin Pie says:

      I though it was a bad photoshop of Charlize Theron, tbh.

    • nadia says:

      I thought it looked like Molly Sims, so photoshopped.

    • bluhare says:

      I think she was going for Grace Kelly.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        @Bluhare: if she was going for Grace Kelly, she failed miserably.

        Also, that means that she doesn’t see the irony in picking GRACE KELLY of all people!! Is there literally anyone alive who does not immediately associate Grace Kelly with Monaco and vice versa? This woman is such a moron.

    • FLORC says:

      I saw Jenner too! Why I jumped to this thread as soon as I scrolled the page.
      1st thought was CJ found her perfect make up artist and she should never let them go. Then I read Kelly and hopes were squashed.

      • elise says:

        YES YES YES! I was confused when I read the title because I 100% thought I was looking at the best possible face of Caitlyn. I finally feel sorry for Kelly … but only because that cover is the worst. She’s still a manipulative ridiculous mother who got what she deserved after multiple chances to do the right thing for her kiddos.

    • Charlotte15 says:

      I am so glad I am not the only person who saw that cover and thought “Caitlyn Jenner!”

    • I was about to say they have their season 1 RuPaul’s Drag Race filter on hard.

    • Stephanie says:

      I know it, that cover is awful.

  3. Birdix says:

    She’s finally completely convinced me that she’s a xenophobic narcissist. Gave her way too much benefit of the doubt.

    • Honey says:

      She tried to use his foreign nationality to her advantage when she had him deported, it backfired of course. If anything, this story is a warning to foreigners who engage in relationships with citizens, if things go south, they may seek revenge by having you deported!

    • notasugarhere says:

      Do you suppose her first foreign husband, Carlos Tarajano, would have the same warnings about marrying cute foreigners? They might leave you after 6 months when you become seriously ill. Only AFTER collecting the pay for the magazine stories about your wedding of course!

      • Ennie says:

        +1
        The quote that takes the cake: “Children need both parents”.
        It took court countless times to make her learn that small life tidbit.
        I suspect her mindset became what it is because of her mother. “If my mother was happy, then everything was good”: Fathers do not count/ “I” am the mother I HAVE to be happy.

      • Who ARE these people? says:

        It’s revealing, isn’t it? What happened when her mother *wasn’t* happy … and who was responsible for making her mother happy? Hmmm (strokes beard).

      • Charlotte15 says:

        Yes, what is this fresh wave of BS, “the mother must be happy?” Fathers’ happiness doesn’t matter? She is batshit insane and will say positively *anything* that fits her ridiculous martyr narrative.

        Do you think this magazine shoot was in the can BEFORE Giersch filed against Vanity Fair? I can’t imagine they believe the sales she would generate are worth risking a lawsuit over, but it might have already been printed so they went with it and crossed their fingers.

        She cannot go away quickly enough.

  4. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    She would be a great lesson in how to fail at winning custody, how to use your children to get attention to improve your career, how to twist the truth and how to lose custody, so yes, I can get behind this.

  5. raptor says:

    That’s… that’s Kelly Rutherford on the cover?

  6. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Romania huh?

    Hmph! Well she’s lost me as a fan!

    How can I trust any American woman who would go to Romania for a photo shoot when there’s cameras right here in the USA? And where is the white? All I see is black and lies! LIES!

    America is the best country in the world Kelly and if our magazines aren’t good enough for you, you can sit on a bald eagle and spin!

    /sarcasm

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      Bald eagles everywhere are crying at this most cruel of betrayals!

    • vauvert says:

      I feel terribly ashamed that my birth country would put this idiot on the cover of anything other than “A Cautionary Tale”.
      By now most people who follow celeb gossip have figured out that she is a loon. And what grown ass woman thinks it is ok to say that foreign men have cute accents but expensive accents? That is so… My God, it makes me choke and spittle, I have no words. She has only spent a fortune on lawyers through her own inability to perceive that she was in the wrong despite multiple courts telling her so. And he is still, despite it all, paying her child support, which let’s face it, she is spending on vacationing in Europe. I hope that his lawyers take her to court over this. It does not sound subtle to me at all, she is still going around crying woe is me.

      • swak says:

        DM covered this yesterday and if you could see all the comments that are pro-Kelly (about half of them) and spouting the same things she spouts – how can you do this to a mother, they’re american citizens and should not live elsewhere, etc. You get the drift.

      • Jwoolman says:

        And she says all this garbage about avoiding cute foreigners with amazing accents where? In Romania…. surrounded by “cute foreigners with amazing accents”! She needs to engage brain before opening mouth.

      • Charlotte15 says:

        @JWOOLMAN: she can’t. She doesn’t have one.

    • Sixer says:

      Hahahahahaha! She just can’t help herself, can she?

    • Norman Bates's Mother says:

      Oh, how I love it that she had to go the European magazine to spew her xenophobic nonsense. What would be a better place for a nationalistic ‘Murican kidnapper/mother to complain about the awfulness of marrying a foreigner and again – denying the fact that her children are not 100% American, than Elle Romania?

      Did the American press abandon you, Kelly?

    • Erinn says:

      In the words of Charlie Kelly – ROCK, FLAGGG AND EAAGLLEEEE

    • Charlotte15 says:

      The Eternal Side Eye wins for best comment on this thread (IMHO). Perfect!

  7. Darkladi says:

    I just really want to pelt her with rotten fruit. Her smug crazy is truly repellent.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I’ll hold your basket. There is just something infuriating about the way her interpretation of absolutely everything ends up with her being the victim and martyr to patriotism.

  8. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    Seriously though, this woman is a nutcase, she had to go to the other ends of the world to find a way to talk about this case. What’s next Kelly? A late night interview in Botswana?

    • LAK says:

      Without any blush she talks about us terrible foreigners in our foreign magazines, but you know….Mother courage!!

      ….but I learnt that there is an ELLE Romania. What did the fashionistas of Romania do to deserve this?

  9. Lucy2 says:

    Well she got what she wanted, to be treated like a movie star in a magazine. How ridiculous.
    I thought she was completely broke from all of her legal bills? Maybe it’s best not to claim that and then post pictures of yourself on vacation in Europe…

  10. lisa2 says:

    I think my personal family history makes me very angry at her. I have a brother that had to fight tooth and nail to get joint custody of his kids (which he won).. Because their mother was mad he wanted out of her life; but not his children. I can’t stand when women play the poor me card and they are doing crap like that. There are horrible dead beat dads; but there are a lot more men that are being kept from their children and have women that do everything possible to make it hard for them to have relationships with those kids.

    I support women but this is wrong and as a woman I think what she did is going to hurt her kids far more when they are old enough to understand.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Agree with everything you said.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      I think you don’t even have to preface that last statement with “I support women but” because really, this ridiculous fantasy of The Mother as this magical being that will by nature love her child more than any father ever could is just insane and not pro-women at all. This marriage-home-babies notion has led to a legal system in which the mother has been favored for the longest time because she’s what a kid needs. It’s no secret that most kids stay with the mother for various reasons, this being one very big reason. If women keep exploiting it, we’ll never get out of the kitchen, so to speak. We just don’t look believable demanding equality at the same time. Unless we’re talking about an infant, I think we need to start treating fathers equally. It’s not pleasant but everyone knows people divorce. Shared custody is part of it.

      • M.A.F. says:

        It use to be where the courts would give custody to the father because he could support them financially due to the limitations of women being able to work. Then at some point it switched to favoring the mother because of the emotional support. At this point in society, where women are financially equal (I’m not talking pay check wise) to men, the courts need to look at both parents and decide which parent would the children would be better off living with.

    • FLORC says:

      Right. It was entirely about her and at the expense of her children.

    • Charlotte15 says:

      Also agree with everything you said, and I honestly can’t believe how many Pro-Rutherford people there seem to be out there who cannot see this simple fact.

  11. Snazzy says:

    Wow. Not only is she an idiot, but a racist idiot at that. Well done Kelly, you certainly are an example to others …

  12. Izzy says:

    Yes Kelly, you dried-up fruitball, it will serve as a lesson to people everywhere about the risk you run when you try to alienate your kids from their other parent. Now STFU. Please.

  13. Red32 says:

    I don’t understand the “American judges forcing American children to leave” statement, because 1) her children have dual citizenship, and 2) sometimes American citizens live in other countries. She is making no sense whatsoever.

    • Canadian Becks says:

      Don’t be puzzled…Look who we’re talking about. Making no sense is par for the course when we are talking about Kelly Rutherford.

  14. Barrett says:

    That comment about marrying foreigners and foreign accents is such a terrible generalization. I can’t believe a discriminatory remark like that was included in Elle.

    I am sure there are many relationships that work out, some I’ve known in my life.

    • Snazzy says:

      Me too. I am appalled! And like you, I know many international couples, and it has worked out quite well.

    • lucy2 says:

      I know a number of people who married a foreigner, and even had kids and got divorced, but it was fine – because they didn’t have the parent of their children deported!
      All this foreigner BS she spouts is 100% her own doing, and I too am surprised Elle would print that quote.

      • anne_000 says:

        Yeah, she forgot to tell the readers of that foreign magazine that’s an option for US-American-citizen mothers to do against a foreign-born, non-US-American-citizen ex-spouse.

    • FLORC says:

      I don’t like what she says there either, but out of everything. I’ve found the accent comment to be the least offensive.

      • Snazzy says:

        Ya, I don’t care about the accent thing really, it more about the “stay away for foreigners, they will still your offspring!!” crap that bothers me.
        Actually, let’s be honest, everything about her bothers me

    • paranormalgirl says:

      Yes, my foreign husband has a cute accent. But so does HIS foreign wife. -

    • Charlotte15 says:

      I also cannot believe that Elle printed that remark. It is…I don’t even know. I’m shocked that they allowed that to be included.

    • pinetree13 says:

      ha ha i’ve been happily married to my ‘foreigner’ for 10 years! Best decision I ever made. But yes, lets tar the ENTIRE world outside the US with one brush (and that’s if i pretend that a ‘foreigner’ actually wronged her, which he didn’t)

    • meh says:

      It also really sheds light on the level of depth in her personal relationships. I read it as her admitting that she picked a life partner based on a charming accent and thinks other people are shallow enough to do the same. How shocking her marriage didn’t last.

    • Classy and Sassy says:

      That’s a real wtf comment, and seals my opinion of her as a xenophobic, narcissistic, effed-up piece of work.

  15. grabbyhands says:

    I hope it will be an example to others too-of how behaving like a selfish, narcissistic, vengeful xenophobe will help you lose custody of your AMERICAN children.

    Any magazine still giving this trick press to spout lies, no matter how shrouded, should be soundly denounced as hack rags for encouraging what has been proven to be untruths.

    Is she sure she wants her kids to know the truth? Because I can’t imagine either of them will want to talk to her after that.

  16. perplexed says:

    Ah, that last instagram post – what a martyr!!! What is she doing to support herself financially – does she get paid for magazine covers and attending countless red carpets and gifting suites?
    I thought she was an “actress”.

  17. M.A.F. says:

    Yeah, an example on not what to do.

  18. Crumpet says:

    Elle ROMANIA? Kelly is still a narcissistic nightmare I see (not that I had any serious doubts) and is sticking to her fairy tale. At least she has largely lost her audience, thank God.

  19. Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

    “…how she realized if her mother was happy, “everything was okay in the world.” ” – this sentence shows utter selfishness, it’s the opposite way around, when your kids are ok, then you’re happy…

    • Karen says:

      Exactly – that quote jumped out at me too. Did she become a mother so that everyone would make her happy and all would be right with the world?

    • Lady D says:

      If my mother was happy I was safe for awhile. Nothing to do with the well-being of a child.

      • pabena6 says:

        @Lady D
        Wow…the succinctness of that comment is like a punch in the gut. I hope your life now is fantastic and full of good things.

  20. Ruyana says:

    She engineered the situation from the beginning. She did everything she could to make her ex look like a heartless monster and herself the victim. In fact the opposite was true. It was pretty clear her children were props to her and weapons against her ex. She maximized the drama in every way possible without regard to the emotional harm she was doing to her children or their father. Absolutely only concerned with herself and the public view of her as a martyr for motherhood. She was not a victim, she was a vicious manipulator who tried to put herself above the law and I feel not one ounce of sympathy for her. I wish she would shut up and go away. She’s done enough harm.

  21. Pumpkin Pie says:

    How does the cover thing work? The person’s agent contacts the magazine or the other way around?

    • perplexed says:

      If I had to guess, I’d say her pr person is calling and stalking every publication (except maybe the likes of the Enquirer) to keep Kelly front and centre.

    • Jwoolman says:

      I’m sure her agent contacts the magazines. If she’s going to be over in Europe anyway, it makes sense to try to schedule some jobs. Kris “Demon Mother” Jenner does this for her brood. That’s why they keep popping up on magazines that are not well known here and might have small circulation or individual country versions of larger magazines (Vogue, Elle). The mags are always looking for new material and the chance to do their own interviews with people who may be well known enough in their country. Don’t know how well it pays, but it adds to the resume and lets the person like Kelly or the Kardashian/Jenner put out a press release to get broader publicity for it.

  22. anne_000 says:

    LOL at the irony of a woman who marries only foreigners (twice) and can only get the cover of a foreign magazine in a second-world country while spouting that Americans shouldn’t marry foreigners. Why not just grace the cover of Hypocritical Redneck Times?

    If she had the kids and was offered a very lucrative, high-profile, long-term acting job in England, should the US ban her children from leaving the country and force them to live in the country until they’re 18? Or does taking the kids out of the country only apply to whatever Kelly wants? What would she be screaming about then?

    The way Kelly describes what she wants the children to feel and think, or more precisely NOT to feel and NOT to think about what she’s done is disturbing. Whitewash or brainwash.

    Kelly shouldn’t base her children’s happiness on how she feels. That’s utterly self-centered.

    • pinetree13 says:

      LOL yes to all of this. Imagine if he had tried to keep her children in the states while she worked in the UK.

  23. Mrs. Darcy says:

    Can I ask a really stupid question? I only followed this story superficially, so I know that she behaved very badly etc during the custody fight, and in no way condone kidnapping. But other than that, how does a mother lose custody/what did she do wrong? Everyone seems to have such passionate opinions and knowledge of her intentions as a mother, and I get that she is way too publicity hungry and went about it all the wrong way. But on what planet does a mother not get to live in the same country as her kids when she’s never (that I’m aware of) abused them or not provided for them? I just don’t get why people are so glorying in her losing her kids,even if she’s a dumb jerk, so what, she’s still their mother and will only play a part time role in their lives now. Why is that a good thing?

    • anne_000 says:

      Google: Statement of Decision Rutherford PDF and start about page 21

      1. She turned down the offer to co-parent with joint custody here in the US while her ex-husband was still living in the US. Both the custody judge and Daniel were in favor of it.
      2. She and her lawyers told Daniel to sign a waiver of visitation with the kids or else be reported to the State Department with kidnapping. When he refused, the lawyer got on the phone. The lawyer admitted to repeated contact with the authorities to make accusations against Daniel. One month after her lawyer started in on this strategy, Daniel’s visa (which had been previously approved for another year) was revoked. He was out of the country at the time and thus could not come back into the US and say goodbye to his children.
      3. Kelly’s side’s accusations against Daniel includes: homicidal tendencies, drug and gun running in South America, which under the Victory Act is considered terrorism, kidnapping, child abuse, spousal abuse, neglectful care to the point of nearing drowning a child, tax fraud and evasion, etc.
      4. She made repeated remarks about kidnapping the children. Once to the federal court. Once on TMZ requesting strangers take the kids from their father and that if anything should go wrong, she won’t find fault with the strangers. Once to the entire nation via the media. Then when ordered to show up in court with the children, she showed up alone.
      5. There are Getty Images of her, her boyfriend, and the kids loading up the car and getting out of town even though she was supposed to have returned the children. Then she wouldn’t respond to Daniel repeatedly requesting to know the exact whereabouts of the children.

      There’s lots more in the document.

      • FLORC says:

        Might I add she also kept her children’s passports in hopes it would keep them within her chosen boundaries. Even when it was the agreed upon time for their father to see them.
        And all of her non-terrorist themed allegations of Daniel regarding the safety of her children were false. The best she could come up with was 1 of the children fell in a pool and Daniel with others there reacted instantly to help get them out. Right before she says this in court though she starts telling people and journalist he’s been doing the worst things that can be done to a child.

        Meanwhile Daniel keeps the kids away from paps, has heavy security around his house to ensure their sense of normal and privacy. And has not spoken out about Kelly. She however did exactly the opposite.
        And the children appear to absolutely adore their father and his mother when she flew to the states to pick the children up from court where Kelly was ordered to bring them, but didn’t.
        I was on her side until this came out.

      • Ennie says:

        You forgot the “weird” relationship with his mother, whatever intentions she wanted to plant in the mind of the readers quote here:
        “.. Daniel and his mother have the strangest mother-son relationship I’ve ever witnessed. It’s a very close, unusual, bizarre relationship.”
        from the Daily Beast interview “Kelly Rutherford clears the air”
        ..
        Also, how a waitress with obscure intentions, also married to a foreign man (aka the devil), persuaded her to meet Daniel. It is quite a read, trying to figure out the level of crazy in her, and how shameless she was in trying people to dislike her demon-ex-husband (sarcasm, of course).

        She also from the start wanted to shun the father of the children:
        “And she doesn’t think she needs her ex — or any man — to make her family complete.

        “A lot of great men, presidents even, were raised [only] by their mothers under those conditions,” she says. “The most important thing is that the children have love and stability in their lives, whether that comes from a mother or a father. [Alone], I can raise them to be much more peaceful.”

        (from the Life&Style interview “Meet Helena Grace Rutherford Giersch”)

        She is a master is passive -agressiveness.

    • swak says:

      They could be living in the same country but Kelly had her attorney accuse him of drug running in S. America. And, from what I understand from other articles and wonderful celebitchy commenters, that you do not to have proof of the drug running, but only accuse a person and their visa is revoked. She was told to write a letter to the justice dept stating that the accusations were false. There was a time limit on doing this before he could apply for a new visa. But from what others in the know have said, it is almost impossible to get a visa once you’ve been accused of things like drug running, gun running, etc. Therefore he cannot come back to live in the US. Her ex has offered to buy a home for her to live in in France so that she can live there. She didn’t take him up on it. While she is an actress, she seems to have little work to do, so moving to France would not be a big deal. You really need to google the divorce decree to get the full story. There are so many things that she did to eliminate the father from their lives – one being not telling him when their daughter was born and trying to keep his name off the birth certificate. He has always allowed more visitation for the children than the court required. He has not only paid for her flights over to visit but has also paid for her boyfriend to come along. It’s not that people are glorying in the fact that she doesn’t get to live in the same country, because she could if she wanted to, but in the fact that she has caused this herself by her actions and words. And tell me, why should the father only play a part time roll in their lives. Because he doesn’t have the freedom to travel back and forth to see them like she does. Sorry for the long rant, but it just angers me to see a woman pull the stunts she does and get by with it. Her stunts have finally bit her in the butt.

      • binkybink says:

        I am not taking sides in this but I am married to a foreigner myself and do not live in my country of birth and I very much doubt that some random celebrity’s lawyer has the power to influence a country’s serious immigration decisions. I remember my ex-boss (who had a very acrimonious split-up with his Brazilian wife) was telling me he was calling immigration here and was basically trying to get her kicked out of the country (because he hated her guts and he felt used) and the officers were telling him “sorry sir, she has permanent residence now, nothing we can do, sorry”.
        I remember personally that the whole visa thing, at least where I immigrated to (which is a “western” country) was very much tightly run and above board and certainly seemed bullshit-proof. So not 100% sure what went on with her. It sounds like she made very bad non-cooperative decisions during the whole kerfuffle but I have trouble buying the “she and her lawyer were instrumental in revoking his visa” bit. If true, it sounds like immigration to America has ridiculous rules (of lack of rules) which is not what I thought at all.
        Oh, and if I ever (touch wood) wanted to leave the country because of divorce, there is no way, NO WAY any judge in this country (and my husband) would relinquish our children to me just because I’m the mum. They have grown up here, are xyz citizens, end of story. (better stay put, huh.)

      • notasugarhere says:

        Post 9/11, the entire landscape changed regarding visas for the US. All that was needed was her lies (admitted in court documents) and his visa was revoked. Homeland Security even publicly criticized her for it. Due to the nature of the accusations, he could not reapply until she admitted she’d lied. She failed to do that by the necessary date, so it is off the table.

    • Loo says:

      The real questions are, why was it a good thing that she wanted the father to have no role in the childrens lives? Why is it a good thing for a father to be the part time parent?

    • notasugarhere says:

      Turn it around. On what planet does a father not get to live in the same country as his children when he’s never abused them or not provided for them? On Planet Rutherford.

      To add to the other comments. Once she and her lawyer got Giersch’s visa revoked, there had to be a new custody plan. Rutherford put forward a plan to base the children in New York. As Giersch wasn’t allowed in the US, that meant there was no way for him to participate in their daily lives. He’d be limited to Vacation Parent. Basically, she wanted Giersch to have a bare minimum of time and not in a home environment.

      Giersch put forward the France/Monaco plan which gave the children a stable home environment and the possibility to see both parents equally. Rutherford had no travel restrictions to Europe, he offered to pay for an apartment, car, travel expenses. She could choose to see them up to 50 percent of the time. She could choose to arrange her work schedule so she was part of their daily lives most of the year – in Europe. For someone who barely works, this shouldn’t have been a problem.

      The minimum time Rutherford could see the kids in the France/Monaco plan was FAR GREATER than the maximum time Giersch could have seen them under her plan. The judge chose the France/Monaco plan, largely because it gave the possibility of equal time to both parents.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Quoting the Statement of Decision:

        “To a very large extent, the France Plan permits Kelly to control the extent of her parenting time by scheduling her work to free up blocks of time to spend with the children, as she has done in the past.”

        And no, posters are not “glorying in her losing her kids”.

    • Charlotte15 says:

      @Mrs. Darcy, don’t feel stupid. Other commenters more articulate than me can and will explain the intricacies, but I felt the same way that you did before learning more about the case. I thought a mother had to be seriously physically abusive or something similar to lose custody but once you really read the details of this case, it makes sense. I started out feeling exactly the way that you do!

      • Mrs. Darcy says:

        @Charlotte15 Thanks! I wasn’t taking sides or saying the father shouldn’t have shared or sole custody or anything, just that I didn’t understand on what basis as a mother, other than her ill advised and yes I see possibly criminal actions during the custody battle, she had been deemed unfit. I definitely see now that she went hell for leather, was uncompromising, stupid, defamatory and lost, big time. But saying that, I don’t know, how many less wealthy women who are no more fit parents than the father get to keep their kids? I do find this whole case highly unusual and unlikely it ever would happen in a normal situation. I am all for father’s rights, and I don’t think kids should be split between two countries so it obviously had to come down one way or the other. I am married to a “foreigner” (Actually I am the foreigner not living in my homeland) so maybe I just felt for her at the thought of if I ever had kids and they weren’t allowed to live in the same country as me (obv. I would move,) how awful that must be. I know that motherhood doesn’t make any woman a saint and I don’t think abuse is the only way a child should be taken away from a mother. I get that custody is complex.

    • Lady D says:

      She tried to sue Daniel over parenting issues 50 times in 2 years. That’s court every 2 weeks for 2 years straight. One of her attempts to sue him was because he decided to start potty training their then 3-year-old son and she objected to it.
      Another poster mentioned she nursed the boy till he was almost 4, hoping it would keep him from spending nights with his dad. She tried the same thing with their daughter, but she weaned herself at one year.
      She also had to be court ordered how to hand over the children for their visit to prevent her ‘histrionics’ at having to hand over her children, because she was upsetting them.

    • Jwoolman says:

      Mrs. Darcy- she’s divorced. She sees her kids at least 50% of the time, same as other divorced parents. Divorced parents have to share the kids this way, nothing odd about it. She got her ex deported on bogus claims and so he can’t even visit the U.S. The only fair solution was to have the kids live with him and have her mainly visit them. She can have them overnight when she’s in the area and could move near them for the short time they’ll be kids. She used to also have them in the U.S. for vacations, but the court shut that down when she violated the agreement and kept the kids away from their father and even hid them from him and from the court. She violated a direct court order to produce the kids in front of the judge and is considered an abduction risk.

  24. Farhi says:

    How is this woman on a cover of a magazine? She is a disgrace.
    She framed her ex so he would be deported from the US. And now, oh the horror, she has to live on Monaco with all her expenses paid.

  25. Lou says:

    poor kids

  26. Green Is Good says:

    Who’s this woman?? Photoshop-0-rama!

  27. knower says:

    I’m so over this woman. I totally get why no guy wants to be with her.

  28. Sb says:

    Wow! I for sure thought that was a really bad photo of Caitlyn. Kelly’s looking rough. Guess her antics have caught up with her.

  29. Charlotte15 says:

    Oh FFS…you have GOT to be kidding me. She really isn’t planning on going away anytime soon, is she? If she hasn’t learned her lesson yet…I don’t think it’s ever happening. She has balls of steel to talk like that — advising young women not to marry “foreigners?” Does this magazine have an editor with a few brain cells to rub together? She is a real piece of work. (I also like how CB opened with how she “broke her silence” because it feels to me like she has never shut up in the first place!)

    At least it’s not U.S. Elle (which must be driving Kelly “THE AMERICAN CITIZEN” nuts, but still.

  30. Betsy says:

    I only stopped by to say that this is terrible Photoshop. She looks like Caitlyn Jenner and she does not at all resemble her.

  31. J.Mo says:

    I’ve never seen her look like she has a major underbite until this cover. What a strange photo choice.

  32. Blackbetty says:

    This is hilarious- ” the big bad foreigner ex” Lol. She sounds exactly like a narcississt, like my mother in lae.

  33. Penelope says:

    She’s delusional and unstable.

    Never knew ELLE had a Romanian edition. Interesting.