Kelly Rutherford Files Emergency Motion In Ongoing Custody Battle

'Farewell, My Queen' New York Screening

The custody battle continues for Kelly Rutherford.

According to Daily Mail, the Gossip Girl star, 45, continues to fight to see her children: son Hermés, nearly 8, and daughter Helena, 5.

Following is a quick recap of her ongoing battle:

Rutherford’s ex-husband, German-born Daniel Giersch, was granted custody of their two children in 2012. According to court reports, Rutherford technically has 50/50 custody. However, since a judge ruled that the children would live with their father, who resides in Monaco, in order for Rutherford to see them she must either travel to Monaco or wait for the summer when they stay with her in New York. To complicate matters further, the judge placed the children with their father because Giersch is unable to get a visa to stay in the US. Rutherford has since filed for bankruptcy, citing $2 million in debt from this custody battle.

And now?

Rutherford has filed a dramatic legal bid to keep her children in the US. The actress has petitioned for an emergency motion to keep them in her custody before she is court-ordered to put them on an airplane back to France on August 19.

The actress is claiming “illegal deportation” in an effort to keep her children in the US.

Rutherford’s attorney, Wendy Murphy, is speaking out about the emergency motion.

“Kelly has no intention of violating the California judge’s order,” Murphy says. “This is about Kelly’s children and their civil rights. This legal action is the only way for the children to enforce their rights as U.S. citizens. No person, especially an American child, should be forced to leave the United States unless a federal authority makes that decision in a manner consistent with the Constitution.  That did not happen with Kelly’s children and we are simply asking a federal authority to make a decision consistent with the children’s fundamental rights as Americans.”

Last year, the actress told Celebrity Baby Scoop how she copes with the ugly and ongoing legal battle.

“You just have to remind yourself that you will get through it, because it goes on for a while,” she said. “At the end of the day, it passes. The priority is the kids and when they have questions, I make sure to sit down and answer them. I try to be as kind and as respectful of them as possible, and I also let them know that I don’t always know either.

She added: “I let them know that I’m still figuring out the situation but the one thing I do know is that their father and I love them. I let them know that we’re working it out and to enjoy each moment, whether they’re with their dad or whether they’re with me. You have to make them feel connected.”

Filed under: Kelly Rutherford

Photo credit: FameFlynet

29 Comments »»

Post a Comment

  1. meghan

    Bet she’s wishing she hadn’t tried to cut him out of his children’s lives now. She should lose her parental rights. She’s a nutter.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous9

    The Federal court system doesn’t want to be in the business of dealing with custody agreements; they’ve always been the purview of the state systems. Making some weird “they’re being deported” argument is not going to help her case, and neither are the threats to refuse to return the kids per the schedule as is being reported on other sites.

    What this really comes down to is that she never wanted to share custody of the kids, and the 50-50 thing is killing her, not the kids.

    Reply
    • Janna

      While I agree that she brought this on herself, she doesn’t want to share, and she’s been a complete b*tch through this whole thing… the fact remains that these American citizens were essentially deported. That shouldn’t have been allowed.

      And I do understand that he’s not able to come to the US, but should these children have been forced out of the country because of it. I dunno, it’s a really sticky situation.;

      Reply
      • ol cranky

        they were not deported in any way shape or form. If they had been deported, they wouldn’t be allowed to come and go as they please. What these children have been now is kidnapped by their mother.

        BTW the children have dual citizenship and are not owned by the US or their mother because they are US citizens

        Reply
        • Colleen

          Where did you read that they are kidnapped? This article says she has to send them back on the 19th? Was she supposed to send them back already?

          Reply
        • Janna

          They were forced to leave the US and move to a country they had never even been to. If that’s not deportation, I don’t know what is.

          Reply
          • Anonymous9

            Well then, it’s apparent that you don’t know what deportation actually is. Deportation is the removal of an alien/non-citizen from a country without the ability to legally return. These kids are still US citizens, spend a considerable amount of time here, and go back and forth without legal issues of any kind. Mom is grasping at straws because the custody arrangement didn’t go her way. They haven’t been sent off to Saudi Arabia to be raised by terrorists; it’s France.

          • Janna

            Anonymous9: They do not spend “a considerable amount of time here”, and while yes, they can come and go without legal issues, that’s not going to do them a lot of good when their mother can’t afford the back-and-forth and the father can’t legally enter the country.

            So while they haven’t been “deported” in the legal sense, they’ve been forced to leave the only country they’ve ever know. That’s just odd.

  3. Carly

    I find it so funny that it is always this same photo of her used.

    Reply
  4. pooper

    they should never have left the country of their birth….it was a bizarre court decision

    Reply
  5. Cameron

    She is the perfect example of why you don’t fight dirty in a custody battle. It can backfire so easily.

    The judge made the right decision. The father seems like the only sane parent.

    Reply
  6. Anon

    Judges deal with this every single day. For her/him to give primary physical custody across the world to the father of the children, it was for a good friggen reason. Kelly isn’t gonna win this one either. It only makes her look more psychotic.

    Reply
  7. meghan
    Reply
  8. Miranda

    Why is she saying the children got deported? The father was forced to leave the country because of Rutherford. Then he got custody of the children and had to bring them with him to France. Instead of doing these crazy attempts to force the children to stay she should go to France to be near them.
    The children probably lead a great life in France, why is everyone assuming they would be better off in America? They also have dual citizenship so they actually are American AND French.

    Reply
    • annefan

      The father is German so no, these children do not have French citizenship.
      As for K. Rutherford, I never was a fan of her. She didnt inform the father when their daughter was born, he read it in a newspaper, she didnt want to put his name in the birth certificate, she acted as if she wanted to cut the father from the children’s life. But I still dont understand this stupid decision to send the kids to France. Let them stay in the city they were raised. Kelly offered to send the kids in France for every holiday to stay with their dad, until he could get a new visa for the US. It seemed like a good compromise to me. She’s not a psychotic, she’s a mom, she wants to be with her kids, that’s exactly what I’d do for my 2 girls. Any mother would fight for her kids. And why would she live in France ? How could she work there ??

      Reply
      • Janna

        This woman launched a campaign to alienate her children from their father. THAT is why she originally lost custody, and that IS psychotic. And it happened long before he was deported.

        Reply
  9. Anna

    If they have dual citizenship than why does this article not mention it? Does the writer think the story is more juicy pretending they are Americans forced to live elsewhere?

    Reply
    • melanie

      They don’t have dual citizenship, the reason the Judge let them go with the father to France is because she was the one to get his visa revoked. She called in a complaint to immigration saying he had guns and drugs. He was deported because of her lie, after further investigation they found no evidence of drugs or guns. Since he was already deported he was not allowed back for two years. Kelly eventually had to admit in court what she did, so since she is the reason the Father had to leave, the Judge ruled that he would have physical custody, and she could go to France to see the children since the Father couldn’t come here. The Judge saw through all her schemes.

      Reply
  10. Pingback: Kelly Rutherford: "I Cry In The Shower"

  11. SiervaMaria

    My opinion is being given without reading anyone else first. Both parents are beyond selfish and if I could, I’d take those kids from them both. They aren’t putting their well being (mental, emotionally, psychological or spiritual) before their own because it they were, they’d put aside this insane tug of war that will do nothing but engender more hate, more animosity, more debt and lasting pain. I’m so disgusted with BOTH of them its not funny. It’s sad and wrong and horrible.

    Reply
    • Anonymous9

      I don’t really understand your attitude towards him. They have 50-50 custody with him having primary physical custody. He has followed every single court order, done exactly what he was supposed to, pays for her to travel to France so she can have her time, sent them off to the US for the summer exactly as the court required, and as far as I know, has never made a single public statement about the mother or the court proceedings. I don’t see what he was supposed to do differently, as opposed to Kelly, who has yet to see a mistake she didn’t want to make.

      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>