In a few days Kelly Rutherford is supposed to return her children, son Hermes, 7, and daughter, Helena, 5, to their father, who lives in France. Kelly’s ex, German-born Daniel Giersch, obtained a judge’s permission in 2012 to have the children live with him overseas because he cannot legally return to the US. (Kelly’s lawyer has admitted notifying the State Department about Giersch’s immigration status and allegedly shady business practices, which is thought to be the reason his US Visa was revoked.) Kelly’s lawyers are trying to make a case that the family court judge in California illegally deported the children. Their efforts were shot down by a federal judge on Wednesday. Kelly has threatened to keep the children with her in NY, which would be a violation of court order. If she does that, she could be slapped with international kidnapping charges.
Amidst all this drama, Kelly has a new interview with Hamptons Magazine. She talks about staying in the Hamptons with her kids for the summer, and how she loves the area and spending time with her friends there. She also discusses her custody battle and her new charity, The Children’s Justice Campaign.
Do the children seem good? Are they happy?
They’re good, but they’re getting older so they’re much more outspoken about their feelings on the situation. They think it’s unfair: they’ve basically been told that I should move to France. I say, “Well, you guys are US citizens, and mommy’s a US citizen; your dad was living in the US when we got married and before we got married, and none of us are from France.”I can see how your kids don’t understand it, because adults can’t understand how it’s possible that these children are now living in France with a man who has basically been exiled from this country.
Correct. And we still don’t even know why he was exiled from this country. Because he’s a foreigner, he’s actually being treated better, in some ways, than the tax-paying US citizen. Every evaluator said the children should be with me as their primary parent—that was ignored when the kids were sent to France. Since then, I’ve traveled 60 times back and forth.Traveling 60 times back and forth has got to be so costly.
Basically everything I make goes to traveling. This is why I started the Children’s Justice Campaign, along with cofounder Patrice Lenowitz. It’s really to educate people about what’s really going on—if you bankrupt the mother before she can appeal and before you send her children to a foreign country, then she’s forced to just focus on trying to figure out how to see her children. To appeal a case like mine, it takes an enormous amount of time, and if there is anything even minimally wrong with the way the appeal is done, they can throw it out. Caring parents go in wanting what’s best for the kids, and are willing to negotiate, [but the way the system has been set up] is not in the best interest of the kids.
Rutherford said “we still don’t even know why [Giersch] was exiled from this country.” That is not consistent with People Magazine’s report that Rutherford actively worked to have her ex’s visa revoked. Outside the courtroom on Wednesday, she expanded on that, saying “My ex-husband got kicked out of the country and my children are with him. I’m not the one that got my visa revoked.”
Access Hollywood aired a clip yesterday of an older interview with Rutherford in which she similarly denied having a hand in her ex’s deportation. She said “I haven’t done anything personally to get him deported.” Notice how carefully she phrased that denial.
I checked out the website for Rutherford’s foundation, The Children’s Justice Campaign. While I have reservations about this case, this does seem like a worthy cause. One quote on the site from an expert stood out for me.
Although research confirms mothers make deliberately false allegations of sexual abuse less than 2% of the time, custody courts are giving the alleged sexual predator custody in 85% of these cases. This means, courts are sending a lot of children to live with their rapist. Barry Goldstein, Author and DV Expert
I don’t know if those statistics are accurate, but this really happened to a friend of mine. She lost custody of her children during her divorce after she accused her ex of sexually abusing her daughter. Her daughter told her this was happening, she had confirmation from a pediatrician that her daughter suffered injuries consistent with sexual abuse, and yet her ex’s lawyer called her crazy and the judge granted custody to her ex. You may think my friend did something to prompt this, that she must have been a bad mother in some way. I’ve known her for 20 years. I know she is telling the truth and that she is a good mother. I could tell you more about her case, but I don’t want to compromise her identity any more than I have.
So although I think that Kelly Rutherford is somewhat full of crap, I do think this is a worthy cause. So many times when parents lose custody of their children, people assume that they must be a bad parent or that the other parent must be “better” for the kids. People can be incredibly vindictive in a divorce and they often use their kids as pawns. Courts are not always fair or unbiased. I’m still not convinced that Kelly’s situation isn’t her own doing, though. There definitely seems to be some parental alienation going on. Does that mean that she deserves to have her kids live in another country? I don’t think any good parent deserves that, but sometimes things happen that way. I do wonder if there is more to this story than she’s telling us, but if that were the case wouldn’t she have made it public by now?
Photos are from 2013 (white dress) and 2011 (blue and red top). Credit: PRPhotos
How DARE she even discuss this with her kids?! That is absolutely disgusting! Adults who drag their children into their issues makes me stabby. This woman is vile.
There must be more to this story. A lot much more …
Kids ask questions about these things, especially when they are in confusing or upsetting situations, such as this one. It sounds like her kids have been told that their mom should move to France and they want to know why their dad is saying that, and why their mom hasn’t done it. I don’t know the ins and outs of this particular situation, so I am not defending Kelly Rutherford here, but in general it really important for parents to find a balanced, truthful, and appropriate way of talking about what is happening. It’s a different kind of abuse to pretend that nothing is wrong and refuse to answer your kid’s questions. It’s frightening and lonely for kids to be in a situation that they don’t understand.
What she’s doing isn’t explaining it to her kids (5 and 7!) in a constructive and sensitive manner, what she’s doing is engaging in parental alienation.
@K: I came here to say the same thing. She talks to her kids jn a way that she puts the blame in the father. She is really good at parental alienation. ” you are us citizens, I am too… Dad was living here… We are not from France…” . Bla bla bla.
Kelly, parental alienation is NOT ok. You chose Torrey a non US citizen, you chose to have kids with him and you found a way to have him deported. Deal with the consequences of your choices and actions.
Ps: There are cases that the judge gives to the wrong side. My friend’s ex tried the tactics of saying she was unstable and that she wanted to kidnap their kid. Thankfully the judge saw his BS tactics.
Yupp
I’m sure her kids get sad about not seeing her very much. But the way she’s explaining it is blaming the court and their dad for living in France
I’ve always heard that you should never criticize your ex. Half of your child is their father, criticizing him is criticizing part of your children
She’s self centered. The charity is a good idea but this nutjob should not be involved. Her case is not a bad ruling
Her logic was obviously, “we’re us citizens and he’s not. If he’s deported, he won’t be able to visit so the kids will be 100% mine”
This is similar to what Halle berry tried to do by trying to move Nahla to France.
I cant say i have a dog in this fight but I am a little disturbed by the automatic villification of Kelly.
I think it would be useful to know the grounds over which the visa was revoked. Is he a “good guy” really? Why did her lawyer think the ammunition she had was sufficient to ring the immigration department? I think the idea that a baseless call can get someone instantly deported, particularly somebody with the kind of roots he had in the US, is naive at best. I present to you Justin Bieber. I’m also trying to figure out how all my country folk havent been thrown out of the US. Seriously, the slightest quarrell at a get-together picnic and people start ringing up the Immigration Department. Hell, this is true of every close knit immigrant community.
Also isnt this the exact opposite of Halle. Halle is trapped in the US because her ex wont take the assistance she is offering (tickets, an appartment) that would allow the guy to come see the child. In this case, Kelly is refusing the assistance.
I like Kaisers piece. People really need to stop acting like the court doesnt award custody wrongly. Or that if a court rejects a claim it means that person made it up.
Finally on parental allienation. If the guy *is* dodgy then reporting it isnt allienation. She may have known something but not understood its import until she spoke to her lawyer. This would explain why the lawyer made the call rathe than her.
And in my humblest opinion if the kids are asking why mummy is fighting daddy in court, I cant see how else to answer.
I tend to take a cautious approach to these things, especially with so many information gaps. Also, I guess I remember the many times that the public have gathered with pitchforks and been proven wrong years later. Denise and Charlie come to mind.
So how do you approach it if children, who naturally ask loads of questions, want to know what is going on? Lie and sugar coat or explain what is happening?!
You absolutely explain what is happening in the most neutral terms possible and with as little emotion as possible. It’s a fine line between telling the truth and bashing the dad, and she has to walk that line because those kids live with their father. BOTH parents must do this. To not discuss it with them is ignoring their basic need to know what is going on.
You say: I love you, Dad loves you, neither one of us will ever stop being your parents and that will never change, no matter where you sleep or where you wake up.
You tell them they have DUAL citiZenship and because dad is not USA citizen it is easier for her to visit them. But the distance doesn’t change her love for them. Bla bla bla. See? She doesn’t need to blame the judge and the kids’ father to tell the truth. He pays every single expense she has to go there. She tried to outsmart the court by accusing him without proof and the judge saw through her attempt of parental alienation.
Ps: I love that the autocorrect on my phone change to marry to Torrey, lol.
You give an age appropriate answer that takes into account what a child that age can understand. Acknowledge that both parents love the children no matter what. That’s a good way to start answering the questions.
Although I dont know the details of the situation, I believe the mom has a right to talk to her children about many parts it. The fact is, it does involve them. She’s not necessarily bad-mouthing their dad. I don’t see how people can’t put themselves in her place. Children should know about their citizenship and their rights, there’s nothing wrong with that. On another note, it seems that the popular opinion here is that she somehow doesn’t deserve to have her kids living with her. Whatever her personality to everyone else, she’s their mom to them. There’s no proof that she’s a bad parent or an unlawful person. However, the ex did do something shady to have his visa revoked. Whether she’s the one to have reported it or not so what. If he did no wrong I’d like to see why his visa was revoked. I certainly wouldn’t find it fair if I had to travel to Europe to see my kids when I didn’t do anything wrong or unlawful like he did. Even if it was fully paid for, why does she have to do that? What mom wants to have to ‘visit’ her kids once or even twice a month overseas?
I don’t know the exact details but someone wrote yesterday that under the Victory Act, that once you’ve been accused of terrorism and deported you can’t revert the state of the visa. It did turn out that she lied and that her accusations were false. If they were true he wouldn’t even be able to live in France, since he’d have been deported to place of citizenship, which is Germany for Giersch.
She purposefully tries to keep the father away from his children – the father was deemed to be a suitable parent by the judge who granted him primary custody. A good parent would not do that. Unlawfulness? She wants to keep the children in the States, although she has the legal obligation to send them back to their father’s, based on custody arrangements. More unlawfulness? Morally, yes, if she had a hand in having his visa revoked.
I thought it was her former lawyer that reported her ex to the State Department. She claims to not have a hand…yeah, yeah, I know most of you don’t believe a word she says.
Were the accusations made up though? Is there proof of it? If they were completely baseless and her attorney lied (or Kelly did) are there links I can look up to see this? I know that he refused to state what he did for a living, where his money came from, etc in family court. Did the State Department just say, “well you’ve been accused, you’re out” or was there an actual investigation first. All reports I have report was that they had sufficient evidence to deport. Is it just enough to accuse?
Ahahahha I Have a Bridge I can sell whomever believes that her kids are asking her about their rights and citizenship …Girl Bai! that’s cute, try again!
If a child asks, they deserve a Kid appropriate answer. She didn’t say anything inaccurate. Kids have a fantasy life, but they are damaged by total bs, so she might as well just say, “we are all us citizens, etc”. She didn’t blab unprovoked. Of course they ask questions!
I agree. She should never have discussed this with two young children who don’t understand borders and visas. But I wonder if the father discusses it with them if they told her to move to France. Still I have trouble believing anything she says about this.
I’m sorry but I would be in France in a heartbeat if my kids were there and I’d try some sort of mediation with the ex to work thing out more fairly. She’s being stubborn and she’s not going to get her way or the highway in this.
yes, every sane parent would do this IMO. I see no need why she has to travel 60 times between US and France/Monaco. Move, work with your ex and be with your kids.
Exactly. It’s not like she’s really working. She’s done one episode of Being Mary Jane and one episode of Bones since she finished Gossip Girl, she could be with her kids if she really wanted to but the most important person to her is herself. Not them.
How would she support herself in France, considering she’s bankrupt?
@ORLY She would support herself in the same way that she’s managing to still spend a lot of time in the Hamptons.
@Orly
The father pays for her every time she’s in Monaco.
I’m sure he would pay for spousal support if she lived in Monaco. If they are located in the same country and share 50/50 custody, he would have to pay spousal and child support. Does that make sense? She doesn’t have to work ever! Plus, she can act in Europe. There are more opportunities for her over there than Hollywood. Her age makes her job in the US a non-starter.
So basically, she should move permanently to a foreign country, and live off her ex husband. Ok.
Migrating to another country is not that simple. I’m not sure what the immigration rules are in France, but it’s not as easy as buying a plane ticket and getting a job when one arrives. Maybe it’s different for celebs, even D list ones.
I would move to France, as well. I couldn’t be away from my kids.
Exactly!!! I wouldn’t hesitate to move across the world if I had to for my daughter. She’s coming off like a control freak who didn’t get her way, she needs to move there.
Her mom and brother live in nyc and they seem very close and like they are her support system. I know everyone is like “i would move to france in a heartbeat”, but would you really? Moving to a new place where you dont speak the language, dont have your friends and family close by isnt the easiest thing to do. And i guess as an actor you always have hope you will get a job next weekk. And her ex might pay for her visiting, doesnt mean he has to pay when she luves there and thry have 50/50 custody. So what would she live on? Plus its NOT that easy to just move to europe, get a work visa, etc
You’re a parent. As a parent you sacrifice for the sake of your children. There is no “me” in Mom, Dad or parent.
He would be responsible for child and spousal support if they were to live in the same country.
Plus if she can afford to live in the Hamptons, she’s not broke – it doesn’t matter what her BK petition says. Ever heard of bankruptcy fraud? That’s right people with the means to pay but don’t actually file so the can welch on a debt!
It’s not exactly quick or easy for non-EU citizen to move to Europe, legally be allowed to work there, etc.
Thank you I don’t even know her and there are several sides to a story but Im seeing some very unreasonable posts that seem more like we don’t like her so she deserves this vibe
I couldn’t up and move to France. I don’t speak the language fluently and I don’t have a support system there, plus, what job would I take? I have a feeling she doesn’t think this will last long, it’s really an absurd case. It sounds like the judge hates hollywood people- some very right wing republicans are resentful that hollywood personalities got Obama elected and trust me, there is a vendetta going on.
“Because he’s a foreigner, he’s actually being treated better, in some ways, than the tax-paying US citizen.” Is she for real?
But she didn’t pay her taxes. Per her bk filing, she owes taxes to Uncle Sam. Those debts don’t get wiped out with the bk filing.
She has put two fingers up to the court at every turn and ignored what the Judge told her to do countless times, and now she is concerned with justice? Those poor kids.
So the judge deemed the father to be the more fit parent, for sole custody (physical). It so happens the mother got the father deported, so the kids went with him.
Doesn’t change the fact that he was deemed the more fit parent. The judge would have had to have compelling reason to grant full physical custody opposed to 50%.
The deportation is a separate issue. If she wants her kids, she needs to work on why she was denied the 50%. If the deportation plays into that, then deal with her actions behind it, not play the victim.
They have joint custody & because he was deported, the judge ruled primary residential custody would be with the father. The judge did this because she believed the ex had the best interests of the children & would facilitate a relationship with Kelly more than she would with her ex.
He was not deemed the more fit parent. They have joint custody. 50/50.
so which is it?
Those are 2 conflicting responses.
He as not deemed more fit but still granted primary physical custody in a 50/50 joint custody ruling.
how is that even possible?
best interests of the children reads to me “more fit parent”.
If both parents were living in the U.S. , they would share custody, however the ex was deported and the judge felt that the kids should not be prevented from seeing their father and since Rutherford had the ability to travel, he felt the fair thing was for the children to live with the father until Rutherford’s time on Gossip Girl was over and then she could move to France and that would be that.
The father was only given the children to live with him because he was unable to come back into the U.S to even visit.
Kelly & her ex have joint legal custody and residential custody but because he had been deported, the judge ruled the kids should live with him because she had found parental alienation on Kelly’s part, that Kelly could travel back and forth more easily than Daniel because her visa hadn’t been revoked and that Daniel had the children’s best interest at heart. She still has joint custody, she just chooses to live in the US still and travel back and forth. At some point, her ex is going to stop his good will and she is going to have to figure out another way to go back and forth to Monaco until he is able to come back to US, if he is ever able to or is even willing to do so.
thank for all the info everyone!
Her children were not “deported.” They are still American citizens and can come to the US whenever it is her turn to have them. I don’t think the judge said anything about her being an unfit parent. He just took into consideration that she had a hand in the father’s inability to come to the US. If custody is to be split 50/50, and the husband can’t enter the US, but she can freely come and go from Monaco, it is only fair that they live in Monaco. That’s the only way custody can be 50/50. She could move to Europe to be near them if she wanted to, but she doesn’t. She wants to live here and have full custody, and she used spiteful and retaliatory moves to get her way. They backfired on her, so she’s trying this.
I understand what you’re saying, and I’m willing to accept as fact (although I’ve not done the research) that she had a part in his visa being revoked, and she’s attempting parental alienation. I just find it frightening that stripped down to it’s most basic – American children born in the US to an American mother, who’d only ever lived in the US (at that point), can be required by a court decision to live in a foreign country. This without the mother being charged or convicted of a crime, the mother not being found incompetent as a parent, and the impartial legal representative to the children stating it’s in their best interest to live with their mother.
Interesting points, mayamae, especially about the legal representative stating that it’s in the children’s best interest to live with their mother. Perhaps that should be the primary concern. But as far as I know, he hasn’t been convicted of a crime, either, and she made it impossible for the children to live with her and still see their father on a regular basis. It seems no one, courts included, is looking out for these kids and trying to find a fair solution. I don’t know how to resolve it unless his visa problems are solved or she moves to Europe.
Yeah I am sorry but I am not feeling sympathy at all for this mom. She was told to stop blocking her husband from seeing their children, she refused to put her husband’s name on the birth certificate of the daughter. She was told to go to parenting classes, to get together a custody agreement with her husband etc. She refused to do so and did her best to get sole custody and get the guy’s parental rights terminated. She’s an asshole. Based on this and what happened with her first husband she is getting no sympathy for me.
As an American with non-EU citizenship, she cannot just move to Europe.
No comment. I’ve said all I have to say about this case. Sadly, as always, the children suffer the most.
That is horrifying about Celebitchy’s friend. Heartbreaking and so wrong. I think our family courts do a terrible job, especially when it comes to child abuse, and agree that The Children’s Justice Campaign sounds like a worthy cause.
In this case, however, I think Rutherford’s actions were a spiteful attempt to block her husband from seeing their children, and it backfired. She hasn’t named any reason that he is an unfit parent or that she would be the better primary custodial parent. I feel for any parent who loses custody of their children unless there’s good reason, but it’s hard to work up compassion for her when she had none for him.
She’s a very poor choice ambassador for this cause considering she’s actively and flagrantly trying to remove the father of her children from their lives. She goes as far as describing how she talks to her children about these issues that implies strongly that she’s actively engaging in parental alienation.
+1
Yeah, she’s only doing this to garner sympathy for her case. I doubt she’s that altruistic. I’d even go as far to say she’s being paid by her non-profit organization as the spokeswoman/president.
Wait, I thought she was broke, and spends what little she makes traveling – how is she affording to live in the Hamptons for the summer???
I think the charity is a good idea, but I’m guessing there’s already a group(s) doing that, and this just seems fishy, given her financial situation.
CB, I hope your friend stays strong, that’s just horrible.
I has the exact same question Lucy2 and Marmaduke45. Her story of being broke does not add up properly. Unless she is “rich people” broke.
The federal judge gave her a glimmer of hope by offering to help her ex with his visa being revoked. There is supposed to be a telephone conference with Kelly, her ex & lawyers today to try to see if anything can be done.
This is the one puzzlement to me- it’s not as if the judge, Federal or not, can pick up a phone and presto! You have a visa! And if he does get to come back to this country, so what? They are still living with him. You want to tell this woman- your kids have one childhood- don’t make them spend it being dragged through courts, analyzed, and scrutinized- bec at some point the kid is a teenager- and teenagers vote with their feet- they get fed up and leave.
I’m weighing in on only your point that it doesn’t matter if they’re returned to America, because they’d still live with him. For me, that would be a huge difference. I can’t imagine how it would feel to have a child suddenly become ill and not be able to go to them for six hours or so. She would also be able to attend their school events and see them, even on the days that she doesn’t technically have them.
I actually think if he was able to come back to US, the children would be living with her. They have 50/50 custody. The children live with him in Monaco because that is the only way they would get to see him.
The judge cannot get the State Dept or INS to give him a visa. The federal judges just mediate cases. For an INS case to get into District Court, the petitioner (the father) would have to appeal the INS’ ruling of his immigration status. As far as what I read, there is no petition or the revocation can’t be appealed.
More likely he’s ordered a status conference to see what the deal is. I doubt he can actually do anything about it.
An act of Congress would probably get this guy his visa but Kelly isn’t going to her congress person because she put this pickle on herself. It speaks volumes why this issue never got full blown press/political coverage. She stirred the pot and she got burned.
The Hamptons? Like the Hampton Inn, Hamptons? Isn’t she damn near bankrupt from fighting for custody of her children?
The wheels would fall off in spectacular fashion if I ever lost custody of my daughter. But I do know that regardless of where she lived, I’d move Heaven and Earth to be with her. Move. Downgrade the lifestyle. Whatever it took to be near her and in her life. Whatever. It. Took.
+1
MARMADUKE45 yep me too.
This woman is just evil. To her, “justice” means “what I want.”
As for family molestation cases – they almost NEVER are successful (that is, get the molester in trouble). There are too many ways to distort the child’s reports. Bring in the big lawyers and psychiatrists, paid by the molester, and there is almost never enough incontrovertible evidence to convict.
Look at the Woody Allen mess. The courts said he had an unhealthy relationship with Dylan and should not be allowed near her – but he was never convicted of anything and the files were all shredded.
I know! This woman needs to get off her high horse. In one sentence she is telling us how “broke” she is, then the next she’s talking about summering in the Hampton’s (not to mention her wearing Hermes). And she expects us to sympathize with her *shaking my head at the stupidity of it all*.
I think unless someone is very familiar with all aspects of a custody case, it’s nearly impossible to say what’s what. However, it does seem incredibly weird and unusual that you deport someone and then send their children, who are citizens of the country the parent was deported from, after them. To a country whose citizenship they don’t hold. WTF? Rutherford probably did something to make the situation worse or create it in the first place, i.e. report him. But even if she did, this seems insane. I feel so bad for the children, there’s going to be some resentment for both parents I suspect.
The reason that they’re not living in Germany is because Kelly claimed that it was too much of an inconvenience for her to travel so far – and since France and Germany both are a part of the EU, EU citizens are free to travel, live and work in any EU country. And the children are also German (EU) citizens since their father is a German. All of this drama is basically because Kelly refused to co-operate. Her children would still be in the US of it wasn’t for her. She’s tried to put up road blocks every step of the way and has refused to facilitate the childrens relationship with their father. Therefore the father got the primary residential custody because he was willing to facilitate Kelly and the children’s relationship, including paying for her flight, living and car whenever she chose to visit the kids.
Okay, as a German citizen I know all about the right to freedom of movement in the EU but I had no idea that courts outside of the EU actually do this. Mainly because he was deported. Yes, she played a part in that but he was deported after all so he is to blame as well. They both don’t seem like stellar personalities to me. These kids are going to be angry methinks.
I was simply taken aback that a U.S. court would allow a deported person to take the kids. This is all a mess.
He was deported because Kelly made false, baseless accusations against him which she later admitted. So, basically, the blame lies with her. They’re German citizens too so he’s not “taking” them, they’re his children too. But yeah, I see what you mean but I think the judge ruled this because Giersch wasn’t allowed into the U.S and he would not be able to see his kids – unlike Kelly who can travel. Giersch pays for everything every time she wants to see them.
Are you telling me he was deported without any reason at all? Really? And of course not “take” as in kidnap. Come on, that’s not what I meant.
There’s this thing in the U.S called the Victory Act which basically means that once you’ve been accused of terrorism and deported, your visa can’t be reverted and you can’t apply for a new one for a set amount of years (five, I think). So yes, he was. Kelly and her attorney even admitted it and the investigation turned up no evidence or validity in the claims. And I’m sorry, what you meant exactly wasn’t clear to me then.
In most cases where children are taken abroad and not returned, it is in direct violation of the custody order. Those parents who take their children abroad to use/abuse foreign courts to keep the other parent away from the children are abusing their children.
In this case, Kelly Rutherford, is the one who has taken the children from the home and country of the custodial parent, so she is exactly the type of parent abducting her children that her organization claims to be fighting against.
THANK YOU.
The degree to which people don’t seem to understand what’s going on here is frightening.
Transitions from one parent to the other are always difficult for children in this situation. Sounds as though she’s making it even harder, hoping for quite a scene at the airport, knowing that their father can’t come for them himself. They really are better off just living with dad and having her visit them, judging from her current behavior. But if her income is as low as she claims, I don’t understand why she doesn’t just relocate near them to make it so much easier for both herself and them. She would get financial help from her ex for that, he’s been generous before. The kids are school age and if she tries to delay their departure, the older one in particular won’t be starting classes with his friends on time. Stability in such things as school is a reason children are commonly kept with one parent during the school year and the other during vacations. She’s deliberately messing the kids up on that.
her ex has paid for her visits over as well, she is obviously a selfish woman who thinks her children are her property and only seems to care about controlling them and/or sticking it to their father instead of caring what’s actually best for them
Celebitchy,
Courts do that crap frequently. It happens a lot in domestic violence cases – it’s called “failure to protect”. As in, because the mother couldn’t protect the children from the abuser, she herself must be unfit to care for them because she can’t even keep them safe. Its truly twisted logic.
Uhhh sorry no…..and lots of times people that seem good on the surface lie because they have always been hiding evil and viciousness inside. Wives lying about domestic abuse during divorce proceedings is exceedingly common which is why unfortunately sometimes true victims get screwed……but I honestly feel good that nothing is being done to change it since there’s victims on both sides, so you can’t really favor one over the other.
Did you read the story from a few months ago of that Fox 5 reporter who was jailed for allegedly child molestation? It was a really depressing case that’s hard to know if he’s innocent or not. Basically his sister reported to the police that her daughter (I think 8 years old) said he molested her and they arrested him…..later the child retracted her statement, despite living with the mom who encouraged her that was she was saying was good, powerful, brave……but the court still convicted him because they found “child porn” on his computer that his father in law claimed was his and not his son in law’s. And child porn was never defined as like 5 year old child porn or 17 year old high school girl child porn.
Anyway I choose to believe he’s innocent because the child who accused him lives in an environment where the people are telling her “You’re so brave to come forward with this, you’re a hero for preventing other kids from being abused” and yet she still chose to retract her statement and say she lied…..
Actually, I know this from my time working as a Domestic Violence Advocate with the county court, assisting and supporting women who were seeking an order of protection against their domestic partner or spouse. But that’s nice that you saw something on the news once.
She’s broke and summering in the Hamptons? Oh, please. Hope she doesn’t run out of food stamps.
She wouldn’t be BROKE if she had attempted to peacefully co-parent with her Ex. And now here she again, NOT acting in the best interests of her children.
She says that all the money she makes goes towards travel. That directly contradicts what has been reported: that her ex voluntarily pays all her travel costs (tickets, provides a car, housing, food). His lawyer said no one ordered him to do so. It is voluntary because he wants to facilitate her being with the kids. This has been reported in the mainstream media- if untrue, she would have attacked it.
Her credibility would still be intact if she had just stuck to saying all her $ went to legal fees.
I also wholly believe she provided the ammunition and the order to attack the Visa, in the misguided belief that she would remove him from the picture once and for all. Her denials of being involved with the Visa problems are worded carefully so as to be technically true. However, without her supplying the personal details, there is NO WAY her lawyers could have reported anything.
Is that what she saying now? Because last year she claimed all her money went to court /lawyer fees. Ether way the lady is full of sh*t I don’t know how you can claim all your money going to this and that and yet vacationing in the Hamptons.
I think so only said she was poor for public simpathy.
As a lawyer myself, I just can’t conceive of a situation where are an attorney would do what he did without his client’s full knowledge and consent.
Has anyone ever seen pictures of these children at a playground?
I am interested in how her kids are faring, so I do look for pictures. The vast majority are of them at Hampton-like events. I base this on how they are dressed (very Ralph Lauren whites and beiges) on the context in the pictures, other attendees, etc.
They are always very beautifully turned out, catalogue-ready. They have also been snapped on NYC streets, again mostly in co-ordinated whites and neutrals. I absolutely do not doubt her love for the kids, but I think because she herself likes the kind of upscale clothes favoured by Upper-West end elites and being very well-groomed, that maybe she does not think about their needs to dress in old clothes and play on the monkey bars. They seem to spend a lot of their time at events with her.
I believe the only “duty” of children is to PLAY!
I agree completely! Children’s #1 job is to play.
Also, KR’s ex-husband is very fair-haired and resembles her; if I recall, they seemed to marry and have children very very quickly – even at the time, I wondered if it wasn’t just because she wanted beautiful blond babies who looked exactly like her….total narcissism.
Having gone through a divorce when my daughter was a newborn and my son was 3 years old I have great empathy for her as a mother. I couldn’t imagine losing primary custody of my children. A lot of things are said during a divorce to hurt the other person, but usually an agreement can be made during mediation. I feel so sorry for her. she rolled the dice when she invited the government into her life and it backfired. My children are now 4 and 7 and they live in Germany with me and visit their dad in the summer. My 7 year old asks why his ” daddy left mommy” every once in a while and I answer him as honestly as I can without hurting him or hurting his relationship with his dad. I cannot ignore my sons questions and I want him to always feel like he can talk to me about anything. So, I cannot judge her for trying to discuss the situation with her son. I hope they can reach a new agreement for everyone’s sake.
Her kid looks just like Reese Witherspoon.
I don’t think any good parent DESERVES to have their children living in another country, but sometimes there are cases where parents are from different countries and one or the other of them will have to be separated from the children. I’m curious whether Kelly has considered seeing if she can live in France at least part time.
I usually stay out of the Kelly Rutherford threads because the comments make me too angry, but CB, I also have a friend who went through the same thing your friend did. The court sent the child to live 3000 miles away with his abuser. The paternal grandparents had funded the entire litigation. I guess the court sure taught my friend a lesson, and I learned one too, which was to give my ex-husband whatever he wants. The LA family court is not a place where I ever, ever, ever would want to be.
Reading stuff like this makes me so angry.
Celebitchy, I really really hope your friend and her child get justice in the end. If not, I hope the child grows up and sues the *ss off of that lawyer and judge (and hopefully receives the psychological help she will very likely need). and takes her abuser father down. I am so angry for them.
I got a really, really bad feeling about this situation and that she will not be returning the children to their father. She’ll keep them here any cry out that they are being “illegally deported.” IMO, she’s not a good mother at all, she wants to be a mother on her terms, and her ex (collateral damage), was just a sperm donor and a means to an end. She treats her kids like possessions, aka a Hermes bag. Oh, my bad, her son is named hermes, after all. So I guess it is appropriate that she treats them in this manner. MINE, MINE, MINE. All MINE. NONE YOURS. Just like a petulant child. Children are taught share. Too bad she never got the memo or didn’t bother reading it.
And she left her first husband less than a year of marriage when she found out he had a heart condition. This is not a case of a mother wanting the best for her children, but a selfish individual. Her type of mothering is “My way or the highway”, which she feels entitled to go rogue and lie to the courts, fail to put the fathers name of the birth certificate, probably saying to her kids that DAD did something bad, so that’s why “he” is preventing her from seeing them. Sometimes Mothers are not the best caregivers and they should not be given carte blanche in a divorce just because of her gender. Anybody hear of Mommie Dearest and “NO WIRE HANGERS?”
For someone that is broke and filed for bankruptcy, she sure knows how to live the high life. I hope the US Trustee is paying attention to her spending. Although her non-profit may be worthy, I will not be putting a dime in because we already know she’s a cold hearted revisionist. She would probably take the non-profit’s money to spend on herself at luxury goods store.
Why is she cold hearted? Google what she did to her first husband (not Daniel Girsch).
I speak from experience: When the mother is on the losing end in a divorce action, society immediately deems the woman a bad mother because “no judge would take kids away from their mother.” The man gets an extra free pass, of course, for being “such a great Dad, he really loves his kids.” The woman ends up having to defend herself against belligerent assumptions. Another great example of the double-standard.
Stephanie, I agree.
Uhhh….but it’s true that mothers can be abusive and terrible and still get primary custody simply because she’s a woman…..so isn’t that a double standard as well?
Not to mention courts are likely to believe a woman lying about domestic abuse without any evidence whereas not so much if a man claims it despite 40% of domestic abuse victims being men.
Thank you.
I never comment on threads here, but I have extreme sympathy for Kelly and your friend. The courts these days bend over backwards to demonstrate that they aren’t biased towards mothers, and often times make really terrible decisions. My XH tried to get full custody of our child, made up all kinds of lies about me, and we sought a custody evaluator who concluded that my XH had findings suggestive of a personality disorder but still found in his favor because I was going to have to move to a new city for work (the custody evaluator, it turns out, had been in a similar experience himself and was enormously biased). I had to buy him off just for shared custody but still spend a year with my child living away from me. It was hell. I have an immense distrust of family courts now.
I agree that parental alienation is a very bad thing (if that is what is happening, I don’t think her comments are that outrageous) but I also think there are better ways to address it than revoking custody – mandatory education/therapy would be one.
Kelly Rutherford/custody
The father lives in Monte Carlo? The writer Somerset Maugham wrote of that locale “A sunny place for shady people.”
This case has judicial bias written all over it. Her kids were born In the US to an American mother. She had 50/50 custody. Why were the children allowed to live with his father in a foreign country because HIS visa was revoked. It sounds like she had some shady business dealings and she used that against him. While she did have ulterior motives the fact is that he was found to be involved in fraud. Why would they award him full custody? That judge had an ax to grind. While she may not be warm and fuzzy, neither is he.
Here’s what I find strange about this case. It’s France, it’s about a 5 hour flight from NYC, where she lives. If he lived in California, it would be about a 5 hour flight. There is virtually no difference and yet all we hear is that these poor children are being dragged halfway across the world.
Would she be fighting the custody agreement if the father were in California? Yes, and that tells me that it has nothing to do with the country in which they live, and everything to do with her refusal to share the kids right from the beginning and her sense that she owns them.
I’m not a mother so I know nothing on the motherly instinct chart. But hubby’s a lawyer and I from my own experience of having to file a restraining order. I would have a few tips for Kelly. I am not throwing shade at Kelly exactly. But I will say if she pulled some dumb moves. A judge will be far more likely to believe you if you present yourself in a calm and rational manner present evidence and stay composed while not flying off the handle.
1) Judges hate defiance: Kelly refused to put his name on their daughter’s birth certificate after being told on FOUR seperate occasions . She refused to take parenting class when her ex complied with every demand. She only did comply when threatened with jail. Judges don’t like having to repeat themselves. It is a power game but if you want to stay on the judges good side, you do what you’re told when you’re told. You follow schedules you follow the timeline the judge has set.
2) Judges watch the back of other judges: According to my research, she filed the case in New York and when it wasn’t going her way she had the case moved to CA as she maintains two residences in each state. That shows a judge she is unstable and trying to circumvent what other judges told her. See tip #1.
3) Judges don’t like drama: Like most sane people (sane in this case = the 85% of divorcees with children that settle before trial and result with a joint custody agreement that have little to no court interventions thereafter), judges will become weary of anyone who brings their ex to court over minor accusations that should be settled between the two parties on their own. There are exception but it better be worth a judge’s time. If you are so immature that you cannot settle this matter outside of court (in the eyes of a judge) and you are the one constantly bringing strange petitions then you will be seen as the problem. My ex pulled that after I filed a restraining order and tried taking me to court over petty things…judge got sick of it real quick and barred him from further filings while EXTENDING my restraining order.
I could go on but I won’t. It sucks what happened to CB’s friend…. it sucks. So.e judges are good and some really suck. The system could be better but in my opinion based on what I have read in the media this is one of those times where if Kelly really wanted her kids back she would play by the rules. She can’t do that so what is that going to tell a judge about the way she will raise her children? I would strongly advise Kelly to stop and think really hard about the consequences of her actions and words.
This blog at first looks like a feminist blog. Then as you begin to read the viciousness directed at women by, presumably women readers , you realise the feminist tag really does not apply to this crowd. Might as well read Gawker.
Feminism doesn’t mean that you support women even when they’re in the wrong, there’s no equality in that.
Read Joseph Gordon Levitt’s thoughts on feminism on the front page, your comment proves that you need to read it.
What viciousness? The comments here are all carefully thought out and mature – there is no viciousness or meanness. Or do you think that any criticism of another woman is automatically vicious? Believing that every woman is a blameless victim, just by virtue of her gender, is not feminism in my book.
She’s barely worked since Gossip Girl and living in Europe is so much cheaper than in the US, if she can live on the Upper East Side on NYC and spend the summer in the Hamptons, trust me she can live in France for decade without a job. she’s just a selfish person. She deserves everything happening to her.
I know it seems like she has been shady. I would have thought the same thing until this last year when I have been fighting for custody for my 5 year old child with an ex who is so far past bitter, angry, and vengeful that it takes my breath away.
He has much more money. In the end, that is what seems to matter. He can cause endless delays over minor legal procedures. Wait til the last minute and then file a motion for continuance. This adds and adds to my legal debt.
At a certain point, he offered unfavorable terms of settlement. And I had to give in. Not because he is the better parent (in fact the social worker/guardian ad litem recommended me as the better parent). But simply because my lawyer was going to send me to collections and I was going to lose my job because of missing work for court dates,
Money. Plain and simple. It is the most heart-achingly miserable situation I have ever lived through.
Except she’s been doing to him what your ex has been doing to you. He has never been against joint custody. He wants her in the kids’ lives. He pays for her to visit and sends them to her for the summer. The court has clearly seen that she is trying to do a parental alienation trip on him while he is not doing that to her. He has primary custody only because they are young enough to need a stable home base for school etc. but she made it impossible for him to visit them in the US. It makes a lot of sense to have them live with him right now and have her visit them. Dads have had to do that for ages in a divorce, now judges don’t automatically assume the mom is the only choice for primary custody. He got the kids because the judge was confident that he would follow court orders and keep their mom in their lives as much as possible. She has repeatedly shown the court that she will not pay attention to the judge’s decisions and will try relentlessly to keep them away from their dad. This isn’t a money issue. Your situation is very different.
She’s an pretty good actress. SHE can’t move to the UK and be on the stage in theater? She can’t move to Monaco?
Why can’t he move to Canada? Toronto to me closer to the US? He’s barred from entering the US but not Canada. He’d be closer. Why does he have to be in Monaco?
I’d assume when Canada checks his background they would reject his visa for the investigation in the U.S.
If that applies Europe is the only option.
Canada has stricter immigration codes. Al Hong Kong actor repeated got his application denied because he had a criminal record for his youthful indiscretion. So nope he wouldn’t be welcomed in Canada either.
Well her plan to keep the father away really backfired. Both sound sketchy to me. Poor kids.