Two American Kids Shipped to France in One of the Worst Custody Decisions. Ever.

[gitana1]

Wow. Gitana, just wow. She sure acts entitled doesn't she? She was complaining on TV that she was supporting her ex husband and had to pay all the legal bills. So basically she has lied, manipulated, conned, broken the law, has been deceitful and mean. Why on earth wouldn't she put Daniel's name on Helena's birth certificate? Or file the affidavit with Immigration? It doesn't seem like she has her children's best interest at heart, simply her own.

I bet Dr. Phil is mad at being duped too, but at least I am some smart company

She might have been forced to pay monetary sanctions at some point due to bringing him back to court so many times and refusing to follow the court's orders. So there may be a bit of truth to her nonsense!

 

[SophieRose]

Ok. I changed my mind. Wow, she sure is good at manipulating the media and had me convinced that her ex husband was a horrible person. She made it sound like one of those cases where she didn't know where the children were and that Daniel had essentially kidnapped them.

In reading the decision though, the Court sounds very annoyed with Kelly. Very. I don't ever remember reading an opinion where the feelings of the Court were so transparent, but then again, I don't read very many.

I really appreciate the links and the updates on this case. I was very wrong and should have read all the opinions before lending my virtual support. Can I blame Dr. Phil? Please?

Do you know why the ex-husband was deported from the USA?

 

[gregjrichards]

Do you know why the ex-husband was deported from the USA?

"Giersch's American visa was revoked in April 2012,[15] after Rutherford's lawyer informed the State Department about issues pertaining to Giersch's businesses, which led the Department to conclude that they had sufficient evidence to deport him.[15] It has been reported that the allegations involved fraud[15] or an involvement in drugs and weapons dealing in South America, considered terrorism under the Victory Act.[16] Giersch consequently became unable to enter the United States, and took up residence in France and Monaco.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Rutherford

 

[gitana1]

Do you know why the ex-husband was deported from the USA?

Yes. See below.

"Giersch's American visa was revoked in April 2012,[15] after Rutherford's lawyer informed the State Department about issues pertaining to Giersch's businesses, which led the Department to conclude that they had sufficient evidence to deport him.[15] It has been reported that the allegations involved fraud[15] or an involvement in drugs and weapons dealing in South America, considered terrorism under the Victory Act.[16] Giersch consequently became unable to enter the United States, and took up residence in France and Monaco.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Rutherford

That is garbage that the Rutherford team has put out there to sway the public (and so it is dutifully reported) but it appears quite false based on the court's statement of decision linked above. In the statement of decision, the court explained that Rutherford's attorney tried to blackmail Geirsch into giving up cusotdy and visitation of his children, by threatening to contact the Visa board and say he lied on the stand at the hearing about having a a valid visa at a certain point when he in fact only had provisional approval. Giersch refused to sign. The attorney, with Rutherford watching, then called the Visa board, told whoever answered that Giersch had lied, had overstayed his visa, and was about to "kidnap" the children and should be arrested.

Daniel's Visa was revoked shortly after. There is no mention of any fraud, guns, drugs or any other nonsense in the court's statement and it cannot be backed up anywhere else but by what Rutherford had put out there.

(See page 21, lines 18-27, page 22, lines 1-14 of the pdf): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...-xtA30nggE9B54A&bvm=bv.99804247,d.cGU&cad=rja

Please note that it is very easy for the Visa board to revoke a visa and very hard to get it reinstated.

Also note that Kelly was ordered to write a letter to the Visa board on Giersch's behalf to request that his visa be reinstated but she has failed to do so.

And the language in the court's decision about the call to the Visa board is quite telling:

"In November of 2011, his request to extend [his] visa for one year through April 2013 was approved. His Visa has since been revoked, and the most reasonable explanation is that this is the result of actions taken by Kelly’s attorney...At this juncture, there is probably no one in this case who would not turn the clock back to the day before Kelly’s attorney, Mr. Rich, entered the courtroom in this case. When Mr. Rich contacted the immigration authorities and then used immigration trouble as leverage to try to convince Daniel to sign a stipulation agreeing not to see his children, he did damage not only to Daniel, but to Kelly, if not more so to her."

Much more on page 23-24 of the decision.

 

[gitana1]

Giersh's camp has a much different take on the "scene" when Rutherford says her kids were ripped from her arms today:

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/new...ds-done-very-civilly-225410191-us-weekly.html

 

[Hiandmighty]

I've been traveling and am busy. Can someone go grab the ridiculous statement she put out yesterday blasting the judge. Its totally worth the read.

Then yesterday people magazine got ahold of a affadavit from a woman who said the daughetd nearly drowned while with the dad on vacation in barbados.

And she will continue to play the victim and how bad things are always happening to her. I think she is very very mentally ill.

 

[Hiandmighty]

A statement issued to People.com on Wednesday reads: “What the judge did yesterday was shocking, illegal, and abusive to my children. Without any legal authority, a judge from the lowest ranking court in the state court system violated the highest ranking deferral constitutional rights of my American citizen children.

“Knowing she had no authority, Judge Gesmer seized my children and their U.S. passports, and forced them to leave the United States and reside in Monaco, a country where neither they nor I, nor even their father, has citizenship…

“I did my best to comfort the children, but there are no words to help children understand why a judge would be so cruel.”

:facepalm::silenced::laugh::giggle::giggle::giggle:

 

[NSS]

Had a similar nightmare (reverse the parents) myself in 2012. Ex husband filed in several courts for several things, he filed a Hague Convention kidnapping case, filed with the US Embassy in the UK.

I had police, court officers, Embassy Officials and various others at my door. He had the foreign office email me. He lost every court case, sued his own lawyer, lost there too, but the damage he did to our child during this was cruel.

It is quite an ordeal and there are no winners in family court, just hopefully protected children.

 

[Zuri]

I saw Kelly on GMA this morning. Are there more filings and decisions from the Court that we are missing? I just can't reconcile what she is stating now with the 2012 decision. She seems to be talking about more recent decisions or am I just plain confused?

 

[Hiandmighty]

I think she could be that out of it. She's basically making things up it seems based on her distorted reality.

Unles you have something specific you can mention.

 

[SophieRose]

I saw Kelly on GMA this morning. Are there more filings and decisions from the Court that we are missing? I just can't reconcile what she is stating now with the 2012 decision. She seems to be talking about more recent decisions or am I just plain confused?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Rutherford

In May 2015, Rutherford was granted temporary sole custody of her children, following a ruling that both her son and daughter be brought back to the United States from Monaco, where they had been living with their father since 2012.[19]

On July 23, 2015, a California judge ruled that California did not have jurisdiction over Rutherford's child custody case because she resides in New York, and her ex-husband was again awarded custody.[20][21] Rutherford then filed a case in New York but on July 27, 2015, the New York court ruled it also did not have jurisdiction.

 

[nrdsb4]

Just read the court documents. This is a CLASSIC case of "there are two sides to every story."

I am the child of divorced parents who did it RIGHT. DH is the child of parents who were the other extreme. He was irreparably harmed emotionally as result of his parents' nonsense. I grew up feeling that my parents' divorce was in the big picture a good thing for all involved and had a relatively happy childhood with no sense of being pulled in two different directions. NO disrespect was ever shown by either of my parents toward the other, and if there were any disagreements about custody issues, my brothers and I were never aware of it. My DH knew way more than any little boy should ever know about his parents' shortcomings.

 

[gitana1]

I saw Kelly on GMA this morning. Are there more filings and decisions from the Court that we are missing? I just can't reconcile what she is stating now with the 2012 decision. She seems to be talking about more recent decisions or am I just plain confused?

She has been in court constantly, different courts, since 2012 - every year at least.

 

[EllieBee]

I am just being obnoxious and posting that I have no idea who this person even is.

And that after reading, she is despicable.

 

[Hiandmighty]

A los angeles attorney corrected misinformation:

Rickert says:

1) Once a court is determined to have jurisdiction over a matter, other courts will not intrude and make conflicting orders. “That would lead to forum shopping.” Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the rules are clear.

2) Rickert says that no court will pay any attention to the argument of Rutherford’s lawyer that the children, as U.S. citizens, have a right to live in the U.S. “There is no fundamental constitutional right to live in the United States.” It’s important to remember that this is a custody case, and the magic words are “best interest of the children.”

4) As to the future, Rickert thinks the fighting needs to stop. The parties have spent over $3 million in attorneys’ fees so far, and there’s no indication that anything much will change with further litigation. Rutherford’s best option at this point might be to work on fostering a better relationship with her ex-husband and working to get more parenting time that way.

5) There must be a substantial change in circumstances for Rutherford to change her custody order. See: Montenegro v. Diaz

https://underwatch.wordpress.com/20...egal-misinformation-in-kelly-rutherford-case/

 

[nannymo]

Just skimming over this information briefly....am I getting the picture correctly?

It appears we have a beautiful celebrity who thinks she doesn't have to follow the rules because she is so beautiful and well known, she is responsible for her ex husbands visa being revoked hoping it would lead to his estrangement from his children, but instead the court ruled that both children are very much attached to both parents and very much need both parents in their lives so the Judge granted full custody to the Father because he doesn't talk dirt about the Mom, allows the Mother to skype with the children, talk to the kids, visit whenever she pleases and have a relationship with them. The Mother (Kelly) on the other hand has not won any of her cases because she will not follow any of the courts suggestions, will not let the kids talk to their Father when they are with her and talks dirt about him when she is with them, is late to court and defies the Judge???

HMMMM....I think I would want my kids with this man anytime. I have no doubt Kelly loves her children, but it sounds like she is going about it all wrong and needs to learn a lesson from her ex. I personally would move to Monaco

Did I miss anything?

 

[wendybtn]

I hope so. But I doubt it. The decision to send the kids overseas with dad is a widely celebrated one in family law circles. It was a great example of attempts to alienate one's kids from the other parent, backfiring horribly.

But she should've been chastised more in that decision for what she did and tried to do. And she should've been forced to undergo counseling.

Also, ever since, she has repeatedly tried to change the court's orders, threatened to kidnap her kids, filed actions in various courts, and paraded the kids in front of the media in violation of court's orders.

Parental alienation is child abuse. She needs to be called out. Instead, she gives her sob story which most accept as true without any research, including the media, and hundreds of celebrities who "support" her.

It has been driving me crazy!

Parental alienation is taken very seriously these days and since it appears the wife was the one doing that, she is not likely to get many court rulings in her favor now (I have no idea who either of these parents are.)

 

[wendybtn]

Just skimming over this information briefly....am I getting the picture correctly?

It appears we have a beautiful celebrity who thinks she doesn't have to follow the rules because she is so beautiful and well known, she is responsible for her ex husbands visa being revoked hoping it would lead to his estrangement from his children, but instead the court ruled that both children are very much attached to both parents and very much need both parents in their lives so the Judge granted full custody to the Father because he doesn't talk dirt about the Mom, allows the Mother to skype with the children, talk to the kids, visit whenever she pleases and have a relationship with them. The Mother (Kelly) on the other hand has not won any of her cases because she will not follow any of the courts suggestions, will not let the kids talk to their Father when they are with her and talks dirt about him when she is with them, is late to court and defies the Judge???

HMMMM....I think I would want my kids with this man anytime. I have no doubt Kelly loves her children, but it sounds like she is going about it all wrong and needs to learn a lesson from her ex. I personally would move to Monaco

Did I miss anything?

Seems to me she is more interested in getting what she needs and wants than what is best for the kids.

 

[MyBelle]

Parental alienation is taken very seriously these days and since it appears the wife was the one doing that, she is not likely to get many court rulings in her favor now (I have no idea who either of these parents are.)

Taken even more seriously is the issue of court jurisdiction over child custody. Rutherford's paid a ton of money to attorneys trying to manipulate it to no avail. Evidently she isn't bright enough to figure this out.

JMO

 

[nrdsb4]

There is a saying:

"You've got to love your children more than you hate your ex."

Rutherford clearly finds her hatred of her ex and her desire to punish him at the expense of her own children to be far more important than working to ensure the best, happiest life for those kids. The whole thing is a disgusting exercise in self indulgence.