Kelly Rutherford: The Custody Battle Is “Just Silly”

Screen Shot 2013-05-12 at 8.37.43 PM

Kelly Rutherford shared a photo of herself and her mother Ann on Sunday (May 12). The Gossip Girl star wrote: “Happy Mother’s Day Mom @a6edwards.” This past week she spoke to US Weekly about the ongoing custody battle to get her children Hermes, 6, and Helena, 3, back to the U.S. to permanently live with her.

She said, “I’m just looking forward to them coming home at some point soon. They’re U.S. citizens who were sent to a foreign country that neither their father nor I have any connection to. I think the whole thing is bizarre.”

Last August – a judge ruled that the kids live with their father Daniel Giersch in Monaco since he moved there after being barred from the U.S. due to a revoked visa. The judge had reasoned since Rutherford has a flexible schedule – she can travel to and from Monaco.

The 44-year-old actress said of the situation, “I think it’s hard on them. And certainly as a mother it’s hard to watch them go through this. It’s just silly.”

She has gotten involved in a mission to help mothers deal with their own custodial issues. She shared, “You shouldn’t be able to go to court and be litigated against in that way over your children. There needs to be some reform, that’s all. They just need to change a few laws and get things straight again and on the right track.”

Rutherford also has revealed she’s almost broke from fighting.  She’s living at a friend’s apartment out of necessity and told E! News that she has “spent every penny. Every penny from Gossip Girl, my pension, my stocks has been spent fighting for my children.”

There is some good news. Her children are going to visit her in New York this summer.

“I think the kids are coming here,” she said. “I’m beside myself.”

She added, “They like to do everything. They like to go for ice cream, they love the park, they love to be outdoors. They love FAO Schwarz.”

Filed under: Kelly Rutherford

Photo credit: Instagram

21 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. Barbara

    Kelly is living with Karma….just sayin’

    Reply
  2. Someone

    Not sure what exactly happened…kinda strange that a judge would side with the father and let him move their kids so far away from mom. Must have been a real doozy of a situation!

    Reply
  3. anon

    Isn’t she the reason for all of this?!!

    Reply
  4. Kat

    She made it so he couldn’t travel to the US, so in order for him to see his kids they have to be with him, in another country. She was trying to keep him from seeing them, and her plan backfired. So now she has to go there to see them.

    Reply
    • Robin

      The man didn’t have a legitimate visa. Not her fault for that.

      Reply
      • Ld

        Uh, actually, it is. She accused him of illegal activities– accusations that were never found to be true, by the way –but according to the Victory Act, just the accusation of drugs/arms dealings and your visa gets revoked. Rutherford resorted to this after initially refusing to put Giersch’s name on Helena’s birth certificate and doing enough to interfere with his custody time with their children that even a notoriously pro-mother female judge had enough. Giersch, on the other hand, has no record of ever once refusing her time with those kids.

        She got herself in this hole, and you know, it isn’t even a very deep one. Rutherford still has 50% timeshare with their kids. And Giersch has to pay for all of her travel expenses and lodging expenses. He is simply residential parent so that she is unable to keep playing her vicious games that use her own children as pawns.

        Reply
    • Destiny

      When she had custody she took them to see their father for visits outside the US and was still willing to do that. That’s why it’s absurd the judged ruled for the kids to be forced to live in another country. There is no need for it.

      Reply
  5. Jen

    The court found that while the father had shown himself to have facilitated a relationship between the children and Kelly, she had not shown a similar commitment to allowing a relationship between the kids and their father. Most notably, she did not contact him when she had their baby and she had to be compelled by the court multiple times to put his name on the birth certificate because she kept refusing.

    She showed herself to have an interest in denying him a relationship with the kids and denied court orders. That is a pretty good way to lose primary custody to the other parent who is playing by the rules.

    Reply
  6. anonymous

    Exactly and I can think of a few more. They could all become members of the “father elimination” club.

    Reply
  7. Becky

    These mothers need to realize that they do not own their kids. They are not the only ones that matter and that just because they are the female they have special rights. They did not make these children on their own and they can’t have exclusive rights to them just because they are women. I don’t get it. The kids have 2 parents and need both of them equally. One parent does not get more rights then the other. My dad got custody of me because my mom did some stupid crap and assumed she would get me because he was the mom. My dad did a great job raising me and he let my mom see me whenever she wanted too. Nothing says the mom should get full custody just because she is the mom that’s stupid and wrong. Dads can do a great job too.

    Reply
  8. Little children like they are need their Mother, it has been proved that the psychological damage that is done to young children when they are removed from their primary carers, can be life long damage.The big show that the Father put on at the airport with the big Super mama sign and all the balloons was a joke, he either wants her back or wants her to look bad and get even with her for leaving him.I am sure Kelly saw through his little game. The Father should do the right thing and send the children home to America where they belong. Kelly does not have 50 percent custody because she does not see them 50 percent of the time, as she cannot afford it she has huge legal fees and flights and has to pay for hotels and hiring cars as he
    only has to pay for 6 flights a year, when she has her children it is in a hotel not her home so she does not have normal time with her children. The Father and the Judge should be ashamed of what they have done to those children.psychological damage lasts a lifetime.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous9

    So, she’s so poor from this that she’s staying with a friend because she can’t afford anywhere to live, but the kids are coming to spend the summer? Are they staying at the friend’s place, too, or is Kelly overstating things for effect, again?

    If the battle is stupid, then stop fighting it, abide by the decision and enjoy your 50% time with the kids. Kind of like what the father would be expected to do if you got your way.

    Reply
  10. The Nurtured Parent

    Has anyone proven that Kelly had anything to do with his VISA being revoked? And if that were the case, if anyone could get their ex-partners deported because they were done with the relationship, wouldn’t half this country be deported??? I think this dad should prove that she had something to do with his VISA scandal. If not, then he and his attorney should be held accountable for lying to the court and the public.

    Both victims’ rights advocates and survivors of domestic abuse hear about (and live) the horror of judicial misconduct day after day, but Kelly Rutherford’s case is particularly alarming:
    1. A judge effectively deported two American citizen children to accommodate a man who has been kicked out of the US; and the reasons for his forced departure from the US are unclear, which raises serious concerns about the children’s safety and well-being.
    2. The judge’s ruling is unprecedented and goes against the weight of ALL legal authority.
    3. The judge forced two American children (3 and 5 years old) to live in France without their mother even though the children’s own counsel recommended that they stay in the US with their mother.
    4. Kelly agreed to bring the children to visit their father frequently (and did so), but her offer was rejected.
    5. Requiring the children to live in France is particularly dangerous because France is not obligated to respect American Court orders which means France officials could modify the custody and visitation decision at any time, without recourse for Kelly or her children.

    The best solution when determining the best interests of the children is to require that safety be the first priority. This is a strong argument because how can anyone argue against it? Safety, however not only means that the child won’t be beaten, molested or neglected, but that the child won’t be placed in circumstances that increase their risks. Kelly’s babies are in another country, away from their home, their mother, their schools, their friends, their family, their pediatrician, etc. They have been forced by a judge to live with their grandmother and the grandmother’s boyfriend in France, while the father is not a citizen of France, and this is not the father’s home. Who can guarantee their safety in this situation–the U.S. Judge that ordered them to live an ocean away? If anything happens to those children, the Judge will recuse herself–freely walking away without any accountability.
    A solution of paramount importance when determining the best interest of children is the role of the primary attachment parent. Primary attachment concerns which parent provided most of the child care in the first two years of the child’s life. That parent is ALWAYS the primary attachment figure even if the custodial arrangements are later changed. Children separated from their primary attachment figure are more likely to suffer low self-esteem, depression and suicide when older. That is a safety issue. So much of what court professionals focus on are not safety issues. This needs to change. The safety and psychological needs of a child MUST come first.

    Lack of oversight and accountability in Family court proceedings across the United States has led to continuous devastation for mothers and their children. We need to take a STAND AGAINST INJUSTICE–before this happens to you or someone you love.

    Kelly, you and your children are in our thoughts and prayers.

    Reply
  11. I agree 100 percent with The Nurtured Parent, this whole case is appalling sending those children who are US citizens to France. France does not have to follow what American Courts say,those children could end up anywhere in a country who is not a member of the Hague Convention and Kelly would have no way of having them returned. All Judges that make wrong decisions are never held accountable for what ever happens to the children.Primary carers should never be separated from the children who depend on them for love and security, the damage to them long term will always remain, even if they receive professional help. SEND THE CHILDREN HOME TO THEIR MOTHER WHERE THEY BELONG All children grow up and parents have to answer for the things they have done. SEND THEM HOME DANIEL – THEY NEED THEIR MOTHER.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>