Thursday, August 14, 2014

Kelly Rutherford Loses In Court Again

Kelly Rutherford's never ending quest to have her two kids live with her in the US had another setback yesterday. In a unique legal move, Kelly's lawyers went to federal court and argued that when a California judge ordered that her kids live with their father because he didn't have the right to live in the United States that the judge was effectively deporting her US citizen children. The federal judge in New York though told Kelly and her lawyers that he didn't have jurisdiction over the child custody case in California and told Kelly she was out of luck. Kelly started crying in court and said that the government should protect its citizens, which include her kids. The children are due to be sent home to their father on Tuesday and if Kelly does not return the on that day could face kidnapping charges. I'm sure she will send them home because there is no point in her risking kidnapping charges or being unable to see them in the future because of her actions. The judge said he would try and work something out to give the father of the kids the right to live and work in the US which would let Kelly see them more frequently. I wonder if the guy wants to come back though. What about his job in Europe?

Posted by ent lawyer at 6:00 AM

Labels:

56 comments:

  1. sandybrook6:01 AM

    Good point why would he want to be here?

    ReplyDelete
  2. LottaColada6:04 AM

    Such a huge mess. That she started.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trilby9:20 AM

      Yep. Why don't people ever take the fucking time to think before they breed and bring innocent children into the world?! What a mess of a situation - emotionally and physically - for those kids.

      Delete
  3. Violet6:06 AM

    Why does the dad not have the right to live in the US if he was married to her?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mynerva10:16 AM

      IIRC she got him deported somehow when their divorce got nasty. Karma is a motherfucker

      Delete
  4. MollyMo6:07 AM

    I would sell everything I own, pack up and move to where they live and get a new job. Yes it is insane and yes she should be able to be with her kids, but sometimes when reality makes no sense you have to be the one who bends. Show that you are the bigger person willing to do what it takes to be in their life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown6:21 AM

      +1. It is crazy and seems sooo unfair but I would have moved there in a heartbeat. Can't imagine being separated from my babies.

      Delete
  5. Habibti6:08 AM

    That must of been a very short marriage if they didnt even get round to filling in US passport application for the husband!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Now!6:09 AM

    @MollyMo, the dad lives in Monaco. Not sure there are many jobs there for faded TV drama actresses in their late 40s. Not sure she has other job skills. Can she type?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MollyMo6:19 AM

      That's what I mean. Take a break from acting and get a different job. Simplify your life to be in your kids life. Prove to the judge you are serious about being the better parent and person in this situation. Your kids only grow up once.

      Delete
  7. snookiemonster6:11 AM

    Note to self. Marry man from same country.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Its just U6:13 AM

    Didn't she report him (falsely) to Homeland Security and that's why he can't live in the U.S.?
    She thought she could get rid of him and keep the kids.
    Shit doesn't work like that though. That proves she's a manipulator and that her agenda is more important than what's best for the children.
    And now she wants to use her actions to get what she wants.
    She should be prosecuted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cheryl6:15 AM

    His visa was revoked over some shady business deals. Kids are supposed to go to school in Monaco but KR says she has no money for the visits, or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Now!6:18 AM

    He's been paying for her to visit the kids in Europe. It sounds to me like this has become a win-at-all-costs situation for her. Supposedly she's spent all her resources and is living on $1000 a month, which is modest for anyone, let alone a woman who needs to have her blonde roots touched up regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Essie6:21 AM

    All of this mess IS HER FAULT. She is the reason he can't enter the US. She called the authorities and accused him of having ties to a drug cartel. His visa was revoked and he can't get into the country. The judge realized what a bitch she was and gave custody to him. She is a terrible vindictive woman, basically Halle Berry without the smarts. Halle knew when to throw in the towel and compromise, Kelly is to hateful to know it's time to just stop and think about the kids.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tyler6:22 AM

    Violet, a joint custody arrangement was initially worked out, but in an effort to cut her former husband out of her children's life, Kelly had her lawyer go to the State Department about issues pertaining to his businesses, which resulted in his American visa being revoked.

    At this point, I personally believe the children's father is the nicer and more stable of the two, so they're better off with him a majority of the time.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Karen6:26 AM

    I just went into the archives here (by clicking on the tag with her name) and it seems like they are both shady as hell. A nanny quit because he was stalking her to get information on the kids. Kelly got a restraining order against him (I think for stalking her as well, following her and the kids wherever they went). She also filed for divorce while pregnant with the second kid.

    Still, she was pulling all sorts of tricks to keep him from the kids so she's not blameless. But I really don't think he's better than her.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LottaColada6:29 AM

    Also, when did she get lawyers? I remember she was acting as her own lawyer for a while and claimed it was because she couldn't afford one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shelly Shell6:30 AM

    They first had joint custody, Kelly made this mess though, because she thought she could get rid of him & get full custody.

    I don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  16. EastCoaster6:31 AM

    Their poor children! They'll probably need therapy every day for the rest of their lives!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tyler6:36 AM

    Lotta, the "unique legal move" Enty referred to involved filing an emergency petition with the US District Court asking The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security for a temporary restraining order to keep her children in the US, a move a bit above and beyond representing yourself. She's become unhinged. Bankruptcy is probably next unless she wises up. Her ex would probably help her - he's got the money - if she'd just stop being a bitch to him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WritergirlinLa6:46 AM

      She's already in bankruptcy. She filed last year. They are holding about $70K of her money saying it goes to legal fees. It's pretty bad. Apparently she's living on about $1200k a month. Don't know how you live on that in the Hamptons.... But apparently it's pretty slim for her right now.

      Delete
    2. LottaColada6:56 AM

      @maxxy - you're right, she needs all the help she can get. Things went really sour with them and she runs to the media whenever she can.

      Delete
  18. FrenchGirl6:37 AM

    @Karen
    Their divorce was mean but the father calmed down.When she wanted to see their kids,he paid her the travel( plane ticket,hotel,car,...) .When the judge said him to send their kids in USA this summer,he did it.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unknown6:38 AM

    It honestly would not surprise me if "Blue Jasmine" was partially based on Kelly.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pip6:44 AM

    Didn't she make up shit about him to get custody? This whole thing is a mess.

    ReplyDelete
  21. auntliddy6:57 AM

    Ive said this before, i dont care what she did, you dont someones children a continent away. Youre punishing the chikdren, not the parent. She has kids about 50% of the time, she says they love it here and always beg to stay. They certainly look happy with her, but ive not seen them with the father so idk. See how this punishes the kids?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trilby9:23 AM

      +1

      Delete
    2. Unknown1:21 PM

      I guess though the point is kids are best having relationships with both parents, that surely is the goal. Then as he can't work in the US and I believe at the time she had more funds this was the way that the court thought that could be achieved. It seems odd that the mother wouldn't get them most of the time and then send them to France but I can only assume there are details we don't know

      Delete
    3. Unknown1:22 PM

      But whatever poor kids, the situation as is can't be the best for them

      Delete
  22. rajahcat7:01 AM

    this is such a mess

    I feel really sorry for the kiddos-really

    another celebrity f/up

    ReplyDelete
  23. AKM8:12 AM

    Something is just simply Not Right with her. Remember her first marriage, when the photos were all over the InStyle wedding issue, and she'd already filed for divorce? That's just...odd. And then all of this, and I can't figure her out. Essie's "Halle Berry without the smarts" seems to fit. :-/

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unknown8:23 AM

    But if his visa revoked was it because they found proof he was involved with a drug cartel in which case why would any judge put kids in the custody of such a person???

    ReplyDelete
  25. Pogue Mahone8:35 AM

    So cruel, taking kids away from their mother.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Unknown8:45 AM

    Her first hubs got seriously sick on their honeymoon & she left him right away before those mags & tv specials even came out. She left him a note saying "she can't" & filed for divorce right away. He has since died.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tyler8:49 AM

    Tina, it is my understanding that he may have conducted business with someone associated with drugs and weapons dealing in South America, considered terrorism under the Victory Act, but is not involved in those activities himself. Regardless, it was on that basis that the State Department concluded they had enough evidence to deport him - a guilt by association technicality.

    Pogue, she tried to take the kids away from their father but it backfired, and she's not the cruel one here? Food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Essie9:10 AM

    @tina,
    After 9/11, any hint of association with drugs, arms, bad people gets you on a list and you can't come into the country. This is especially true if you are not a citizen and someone accuses you. Homeland Security doesn't bother to check. It's up to the accused to prove he is not a danger to America. Kelly knew this. She tried to hurt him and ended up destroying herself.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Astra Worthington9:12 AM

    maxxy, when a woman does it's OK! When a man does it, it's terrible. Hope that clears it up for you :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Frosty9:40 AM

    This is crazy. Her ex was deported because of fraud and weapons trafficking. Even if that were not the case, why can't he or she have custody six months and other have custody the other six months?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BitchieMitchie4:26 PM

      That's a great plan for the parents...but once again leaves the kids in a shit situation. A kid doesn't want to leave school in the middle of the year!

      Delete
  31. Frosty10:57 AM

    I don't know Kelly Rutherford, but Daniel Giersch doesn't seem like any great shakes either:
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/09/two-american-kids-shipped-to-france-in-one-of-the-worst-custody-decisions-ever/

    ReplyDelete
  32. Topper Madison11:09 AM

    The logic in this whole thing is so strange. Dad broke some law that prohibits him from living in the family home, so they took the kids away from their mother (who is not deemed unfit) and moved them to his place of exile? So if he was sent to jail, would they move the kids into his cell?

    Really weird.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sprink1:12 PM

    She married first husband in June 2001 and the wedding was featured in the February 2002 issue of In Style.

    From which one can only conclude there were other Style-related emergencies that kept cropping up and pushed this feature 8 months back. Eight months, In Style.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sprink1:22 PM

    Ps--the above isn't intended to excuse her "I can't" exit from the relationship, though part of me wonders if Jessica Larson recently watched the SATC Berger episode: that's some cold break up, right there.

    ReplyDelete
  35. SugarTitz2:19 PM

    @sprink fwiw back then i think every feb instyle did their annual celebrity weddings issue. 12 years ago celebrity weddings wasn't the big bus$$ it is now. i just got my september instyle monday and it had every cover for last 20 years and i even noticed the annual feb weddings issue.. must have been all celb weddings in last year.. remember 12 years ago was whole different animal in celebrity world regarding selling wedding baby photos. you practically gave them away.

    ReplyDelete
  36. SugarTitz2:19 PM

    @sprink fwiw back then i think every feb instyle did their annual celebrity weddings issue. 12 years ago celebrity weddings wasn't the big bus$$ it is now. i just got my september instyle monday and it had every cover for last 20 years and i even noticed the annual feb weddings issue.. must have been all celb weddings in last year.. remember 12 years ago was whole different animal in celebrity world regarding selling wedding baby photos. you practically gave them away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sprink2:38 PM

      Thanks, sugarbread. Have to admit it's disappointing--I was
      Thoroughly enjoying imagining what might comprise a style emergency.

      Delete
  37. SugarTitz2:39 PM

    no thats how it was back then.. the annual valentines celebrity weddings issue!!! i totes remember those too!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sprink2:41 PM

    I remember when celebrity coverage hit the perfect pitch. Then it all went
    To hell.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Unknown4:51 PM

    In a divorce and custody battle gone nuclear, it is almost never just one person at fault. Both of them seem like parents of questionable character and shady behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous8:51 PM

    I think this may come off as extreme to some, but situations like these are exactly why I think people should have to go through some kind of screening process before they can have kids. This entire situation is just irresponsible. There would be all kinds of repercussions if we were talking about an animal. They make you go through all kinds of screenings before you can adopt a pet, so why not children?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Aoife11:08 PM

    When you dig a grave for someone dig two holes. Words to live by.

    ReplyDelete
  42. plot11:30 AM

    Kelly created this situation which could have been very different if she had listened to good advice (rather than the drama dripping voices in her head.)

    Her ex has scrupulously met all the custody requirements. The kids spend a lot of time with their mother at the ex's expense. She, on the other hand, threatens illegal measures to keep the kids with her TO THE FUCKING PRESS.

    Guess who is going to win in that situation. Kelly is a drama queen idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Unknown5:02 PM

    Ummm Germany is in a lot better shape than the U.S. since Congress basically refuses to do their jobs with the elected President in office currently - why would anyone come, watch CNN would you want your children, little kids here based on what you see? Nope. Kelly thought because she was an actress she would get what she wanted, clearly everyone from the courts to witnesses thought differently. She's lucky she gets to visit them in this country. They'll be better educated in Germany, and the father truly seems to adore them. While she appears to want what is hers.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days

  • Blind Items Revealed #1
    September 29, 2024 The hasn't happened yet A list rapper is in really bad shape. He had to be awakened just to make it on to a recent re...
  • Blind Item #8
    The mother of a barely there celebrity was overheard musing about how much the sperm donor is worth way more dead than alive, at least to th...
  • Blind Item #13
    The alliterate one had lunch with a woman who runs a surrogate agency. Is this the way she plans on getting people on her side? Or, was it j...
  • Blind Item #8
    Is it grooming when you put a child front and center and have them interviewed by national magazines just so you can try and keep the realit...
  • Blind Item #12
    An offspring of a former A++ lister is hooking up with an A+/A list singer. Their first hookup was a messy drunken spectacle in front of sev...
  • Blind Items Revealed #1
    October 15, 2024 Apparently, the growing rift between the alliterate one and her husband began shortly after the big funeral. The alliterate...
  • Blind Item #13
    For old times sake, these two bad actors/former co-stars/former couple hooked up. They will blame it on being drunk. 
  • Blind Item #7
    The Sean Combs of Hollywood documentary coming is going to send the alliterate one and her husband running like cockroaches.
  • Blind Items Revealed #1
    October 16, 2024 I guess things are getting more serious considering the permanent A list "singer" has Narcan ready to go througho...
  • Blind Items Revealed #2
    October 9, 2024 The Sean Combs of Hollywood documentary coming is going to send the alliterate one and her husband running like cockroaches....