Today's Evil Beet Gossip

Kelly Rutherford Isn’t Getting Her Kids

Kelly+Rutherford+kids

Kelly Rutherford has been going through some tough times, and it’s only getting worse. She had to get a restraining order from her ex-husband after a brutal divorce, and then she had to file for bankruptcy. And now, worst of all, she’s not getting custody of her kids. From People:

A judge has ruled that though Rutherford and her ex-husband, Daniel Giersch, technically have joint custody, their children – son Hermes, 7, and daughter, Helena, 4½ – will continue to reside in Monaco, where he lives, according to court papers obtained by PEOPLE.

The former Gossip Girl star, 45, plans to appeal the judge’s decision.

“It strikes me as outrageous and unconstitutional that children can be effectively deported in order to accommodate their exiled father without knowing why he can’t come back in and he has not been required to make any efforts to try to get back to the U.S. by the U.S. courts,” she tells PEOPLE.

Yeah, it’s kind of messed-up, to say the least. I can’t imagine how she’s feeling. She’s had more drama in her real life than she had while she was on Gossip Girl.

I hate when parents use their kids as pawns in their adult battles. Why? Why do people do that?

Follow us on Twitter | Facebook

3 CommentsLeave a comment

  • I think that the kids are being victimized in this as much as Kelly. Wasn’t she the one who wanted him barred from re-entering the US, or was involved in his problems with the US government? This woman has lost everything, she’s been brought to financial ruin fighting for the right to have access to her children. I can’t believe a judge worth their salt would take a loving parent, who poses no danger to the children, would effectively prevent her from having contact or a relationship with them. If he chooses to live in Monaco and she doesn’t have the financial means to visit them there (which is the arrangement), he ought to pay the children’s travel expense to allow them visitation with her stateside; especially since he probably pays no sort of spousal support and certainly no child support. It should be the price HE pays for residing in a country of his choice. The whole thing smacks of impropriety.

  • Why should he pay childsupport when the kids live with him? I dont see why he should pay for the trips back to the states either. Its always easy just to assume, that the judge made a biased descision. Maybe, just maybe the judge had his reasons? I certainly dont know enough about this case or about american custody law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.