The 8 Most INSANE Things About The Kelly Rutherford Custody Battle

It's more complicated than just "he said/she said."

kelly rutherford WeHeartIt

Child custody cases tend to get nasty. They stem from divorce proceedings, which aren't pleasant. Often, both parents just want to make sure they still have access to their own children, although it's not uncommon for one parent to have a vindictive agenda against the other parent.

One of the ugliest custody cases recently is the one between actress Kelly Rutherford and businessman Daniel Giersch. The two divorced in 2010 and have been involved in an ugly custody battle for their two children.


Complicating matters is the fact that Giersch's work visa was revoked and he now has to live abroad.

Recently, Rutherford was awarded temporary custody of the children, but then lost it a few months later. There was confusion over which court has jurisdiction over the case due to the international boundaries involved.

Rutherford's case caught the public's attention, with many people feeling that the children should be brought back to their home country.

While it's a complicated case, it's best to remember that it revolves around two young children. One thing is definitely clear: long court battles are never what's best for the children.


As this is an ongoing case, there's no final ruling yet. It's still pretty crazy, though. Here are the 8 craziest parts about the Kelly Rutherford custody battle.

1. She allegedly had his visa revoked.

Allegedly, during earlier court proceedings, Rutherford's lawyer was involved in having Giersch's work visa revoked. Sources claim that Rutherford's lawyer attempted to use the visa as leverage to get Giersch to sign away his parental rights to the children.

When Giersch refused, her lawyer made the call to the state department. Giersch's lack of work visa is the reason why he moved the children to Monaco, which is the reason California no longer claims jurisdiction.


2. She refused to follow a judge's orders.

Although she'd been granted temporary custody of the kids, it was ultimately decided that California didn't have jurisdiction over the case. Rutherford was ordered by a judge to return her kids to their father in Monaco. She initially refused to do this, which of course set off the current round of media attention.

3. And then she refused to follow a judge's orders AGAIN.

Rutherford then showed up to court without the children, further angering the judge. This could ultimately hurt Rutherford's case, as it paints a picture of a parent who's unwilling to abide by the court's rulings.

4. Technically, she kidnapped her own children.


Once she was supposed to hand custody of the children back to her husband, she no longer had the right to keep them from their father. Giersch's lawyer could make an argument for parental kidnapping, which isn't uncommon in international custody cases.

5. It's confusing as to which court even has jurisdiction.

The original custody agreement was set in California. Due to the amount of time the children have lived in Monaco, international treaties claim that Monaco now has jurisdiction over the case. Rutherford attempted to have New York take jurisdiction, but a New York judge ruled in Monaco's favor.

6. It's been going on since 2012.

The original temporary custody agreement was placed into effect back in 2012. Since then, the children live with their father in Monaco during the school year and spend summers with their mother. She also has visitation rights while they're in Monaco.


7. He paid for her and her boyfriend to visit the kids.

It's been reported that Giersch even paid for Rutherford's accommodations during a stay in Monaco. He paid for her and her boyfriend at the time to stay at a three bedroom house.

According to Giersch's side, Rutherford spent time at the Cannes Film Festival away from her kids during a visit to Monaco.


8. No one involved is a citizen of Monaco.

The only reason why the courts in Monaco have any claim to authority in this case is because the children have lived there for the past three years. Of course, Monaco has yet to rule on the case, so the jurisdiction could potentially get moved yet again.