Fxxk you Daniel Hirsch !

Kelly Rutherford’s custody battle is ongoing and complicated. She’s tried and failed at the federal level to have her two children, Helena, 6, and Hermes, 8, returned to her in the US. A California judge ruled in 2012 that they could live with their German father, Daniel Giersch, overseas. In the latest ruling, the children will come to the US next week for a scheduled visit with her this summer, after some back and forth between custody courts in the US and Monaco.

Along with trying to make this a federal issue, Kelly has petitioned the White House to have her children returned to her. She’s repeatedly said that this is a Constitutional issue and that her children’s rights as citizens have been violated. (Again, a federal court did not agree.) Yesterday, Kelly spoke at a congressional briefing about international child abduction. She has a non-profit called a The Children’s Justice Campaign through which she continues to mischaracterize her ex legally winning custody. Here’s some of what she said:

Rutherford, 46, spoke at a congressional briefing with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas on Thursday, participating on behalf of the Children’s Justice Campaign, an advocacy group she founded based on her own struggle to bring son Hermes, 8, and daughter Helena, 6, home to the United States from Monaco, where they have lived with their father, German businessman Daniel Giersch, since 2012.

“Today’s hearing was a wonderful bipartisan showing of support for American families in the midst of international parental child abduction nightmares,” she tells PEOPLE in a statement. “I look forward to continuing to lend my voice to parents who are struggling with these profoundly unjust situations.

“I was particularly excited to hear several members of Congress say that they are proposing new federal legislation that will hold judges accountable and stop them from forcing American children to leave their own country.”

Jackson, 65, chairs the bipartisan House Congressional Children’s Caucus. Rep. Christopher Smith and Rep. Ted Lieu also attended and spoke at the briefing.

International parental child abduction “occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a child from his or her country of residence for the purpose of denying the other parent access to the child,” according to a CRC news release. About 1,000 cases have been reported to the State Department this year.


Rutherford jokingly suggested that by sharing her harrowing tale, she might prevent the pattern from repeating. “I see a lot of young women here today who will probably never marry a foreigner after hearing these stories,” she laughed. “They’re cute. The accents are amazing — but they’re expensive accents.”On a more serious note: “I fell in love with someone, and I wanted kids. Had I known that this was even possible in my own country, as a mother … it just never occurred to me that this could happen. But it is happening and it is happening every day … to people who have nowhere to go.”

[From People and The Washington Post]

Look, this was not “international child abduction” nor is it an issue that requires any kind of legislative intervention. The Hague Convention on international child abduction does not apply to this case because it was ordered by a judge. In my mind there is no question that judges should have the authority to send children to live in other countries with foreign parents if that’s the best option for the children.

I live in the US, my son’s father lives in Germany and we share custody of our 10 year-old son. My son lives with me, but he spends the summers with his dad and his dad visits him frequently. Obviously I don’t know Kelly’s ex, but the reason I side with him is because I’ve read and paid attention to everything both he and Kelly have said, and I read the judge’s decision. Everything Kelly has done seems geared to cut Daniel out of his children’s lives, and she’s still talking like this even though he has the children full time. She had the guy deported. She acts as if the US is the only place the children should be raised when in fact they seem to be well cared for by their dad and grandparents and they go to an excellent international school.

She’s treating this like child abduction when it’s not, it was a judge’s decision. Yes, I should not assume that her ex is as reasonable as mine, but I’m reasonable too. You have to be when you’re co-parenting. This woman just does not seem to get it at all, and it sounds like she wants to “win” this custody battle instead of trying to consider what’s best for her children. Maybe her ex is the same though, but if so he’s played it incredibly close to his chest.

Oh and as for the things Kelly said about marrying foreign guys, she sounds like an a–hole.

Kelly Instagrammed so many photos of her visit yesterday, including this one which is composed of multiple face shots.Actress Kelly Rutherford, founder of Children's Justice Campaign, speaks during a Capitol Hill briefing to discuss 'the silent suffering of American children and their left-behind parents who are victims of international parental child abduction' in the Cannon House Office Building on June 25, 2015 in Washington DC.

  1. Luca76 says:
  2. She is just a narcisstic jerk. I think she’s the one trying to abduct the kids.

  1. Lara K says:

    She is so loathsome. I have to wonder what will happen in another 3-4 years when the kids are old enough to really challenge their parents and see everything on the internet. 8 is still little, but 12? I can see her son totally rebelling.
    Of course she will then claim her ex brainwashed her children against her, because what else could it be?

  1. Freebunny says:

    Well, her acting career was over, she found a new one.

    1. Norman Bates’ Mother says:
    2. The Duggars have no clue what “slander” is and she clearly has no clue about “unlawful” and “abduction” (and Giersch could actually accuse her of multiple cases of slander and win). By speaking publicly about this issue, she diminishes the meaning of the real parental abduction cases, making it sound like a joke – “Oh, poor old me, my ex-husband whom I deported, abducted our American-German citizen children with a permission of a judge and took them to some horrible, horrible place in a third-world called Monaco. Now I have to fly there every few weeks without having to pay a cent and because I’m so broke, the children have to spent vacations with me in the Hamptons instead of Cabo”. I’d like to hear her trying to explain in detail how exactly her ex unlawfully abducted the children, when everyone knows and can read a legal document allowing him to live with them in Europe. She speaks in broad terms, screaming Constitution and America right an left but her statements are empty, with no actual merit.
    1. whipmyhair says:

    Words are hard, ok?!

    Learning them is difficult enough, without trying to learn the meanings.

  1. Liberty says:

    + 1 for EVERYTHING you wrote here: “—She’s treating this like child abduction when it’s not, it was a judge’s decision. Yes, I should not assume that her ex is as reasonable as mine, but I’m reasonable too. You have to be when you’re co-parenting. This woman just does not seem to get it at all.”

  1. littlemissnaughty says:

    Not liking something doesn’t make it a crime. What a nutjob. I sincerely doubt that her ex is on the same level of crazy simply because the crazies cannot keep quiet.

    Also, Instagram really makes everyone look like a narcissist, doesn’t it?

    1. Gretchen says:
    2. I just can’t understand how she (or her lawyer) think this is a good strategy. She may be able to garner some public sympathy, but surely the courts and judges who have dealt with her case are going to feel increasingly antagonised with her outspoken and consistent misrepresentation of her situation…that will not help her in the long run.
    1. BearcatLawyer says:

    It is a terrible strategy. The better plan would have been to not get her ex’s visa revoked so they could share custody in CA or NY. As the kids grew older and started attending school, making friends, and getting involved in more activities (like sports or music) here in the US, it would have been more difficult for a family court to justify uprooting them to live overseas with their dad. If Giersch were unable to secure a green card or other long-term US work visa, she probably could have kept them in the US most of the time and the burden likely would have shifted to Giersch to travel to see the kids.

    • Gretchen says:

      Yes, exactly! I feel a lot of sympathy for people dealing with international child custody issues, but she has so clearly tried to manipulate the system to forcibly remove the father from their children’s lives. She sabotaged any possibility for a more equal custody arrangement in the US because she wanted to “win” on her terms rather than ensure the best outcome for her children.

    • Becks says:

      With the benefit of hindsight, everything you said is spot-on.

      She never, ever considered the ruling would come to this. She either thought, or her lawyers convinced her it was a slam-dunk that he would get turfed out of the U.S. and her way would be free and clear.

      She was willing to play dirty (using the threat of her false allegations to pressure Daniel to sign away his parental rights, and then when he didn’t fold, she probably felt she had to go ahead and let her lawyer phone in the allegations).

      What I don’t get is WHY on earth is she allowed to characterize this as parental abduction.?!?

    • Daisy says:

      And now the longer the kids are in Monaco, in a settled environment with grandparents, school, friends, extracurriculars, the harder it will be for a judge to uproot them to move them back to the US. Giersch’s case for retaining custody just gets stronger and stronger, and I’m happy about that. And as the kids get older, the more they will be able to say what they want to do.

      Based on what I read in the judgment, Kelly seems to see the kids as extensions of herself used for publicity. Giersch seems to want the best for the kids.

  • anne_000 says:

    I wonder if Daniel and his lawyer realize that they’d better get the transcripts and any audio and video of her speech in case they need to show it to a judge to prove that she’s being publicly antagonistic and not willing to co-parent peaceably.

    I hope the judges see that she’s labeling her kids’ dad as a kidnapping criminal and that she believes any US court judgments that are not entirely in her favor are illegal and should not be respected.

    She keeps sabotaging herself imo.

  1. Tough Cookie says:

    SOOOO thirsty. The acting roles have dried up and she has seized on this “international child abduction.”

    1. Lola says:
    2. I feel for women that have fallen in love with men, have children and have gone to live in the men’s country. Later on decide that they are not in love anymore with the man, or they don’t want to live in -place name of country here – and then have to battle to get their children out of said country because they never had any rights in said country to begin with, for example. I can’t feel sympathy for her. I wonder if she is actually doing any good, I mean, women that have read this play out in the media, with no recourses to go to the media, would they quote her at all if they are going through a similar situation? And true, you can raise children in different countries, not ALL children of the world live in the US.
      I have to stop reading these articles, they affect me I must admit.
    1. Molls says:

    Lola-
    This would be me.
    I moved to the UK while pregnant so that my daughter could know her father.

    Eleven years later, we divorced and my ex has decided he wants full custody, resident parent. He has changed the schools of both (we had another daughter) girlies and he didn’t even mention it to me.

    He lives with his parents now and lets me have our daughters 4x a month.
    His parents are involved in all decisions and if I do hear of them, it is through my daughters or a mutual acquaintance.

    Heartbreaking.

    We are going to court next month, but it doesn’t look good for me.

    There is no legal aid here in the UK to help me, so I will have to represent myself.

    I have no family here.

    It’s a very lonely life.

    I will stay to have whatever crumbs I am offered, but yes, heartbreaking.

  • jwoolman says:

    The United States is a huge country, so there are parents in similar situations here who live several thousand miles apart. They can still manage to co-parent, and often decide to simply have the kids stay with one parent for school and with the other for school vacations. A friend managed to get a perk from his job letting him travel to visit his kids during the school year as well.

    This woman is too much. She has no business talking about international abductions since she hasn’t a clue what the words mean. She really should not be allowed around those kids unsupervised and should have a thorough psych evaluation through family court. This is not normal behavior. Who knows what garbage she is going to poison those kids with this summer.

  • Montrealise says:

    There was a case of a young woman from Montreal who married a foreign student from Saudi Arabia and went to live with him in his country, where they had three children. He turned out to be controlling and violent; however, she could not leave him, much less leave the country, because under Saudi law, husbands have total control over their wives. At her family’s urging, the Canadian government intervened and he agreed to let her return to Canada – but without the kids. Saudi law gives fathers sole custody of their children and mothers have no rights whatsoever, so there is nothing Canada can do and of course, the Saudi government is refusing to intervene. She has decided to stay with her abusive husband rather than be separated from her kids.
    For Kelly to compare her situation to something like this is beyond disgusting.

  1. Sister Carrie says:

    Why is she even allowed a platform? And the “serious” face pics are beyond silly. I’m surprised she didn’t throw on some glasses to appear extra-intellectual and informed. Which is the polar opposite of what Kelly is.

    1. Mila says:
    2. “I see a lot of young women here today who will probably never marry a foreigner after hearing these stories,” she laughed. “They’re cute. The accents are amazing — but they’re expensive accents.”
    3. woah. holy crap.
    4. its not like i was a fan of hers because i also had the opinion that she used the children to hurt her ex but now she proudly came out as a racist. it annoyed me when she played the “my children are us citizens” card to appeal to certain segments but now its very clear that the rest of the world is garbage for her.
    1. Cran says:

    “They’re cute. The accents are amazing – but they’re really expensive accents.”

    The really sad thing is that whole statement can be used in reference to her children. Lol.

  • WinterLady says:

    I’m not sure her comments can be classified as racist, but it definitely is xenophobic. I can imagine in more trying moments her ex and his family have plenty to say about her. She is becoming the poster child for the “ugly American”. Woman, you brought this on yourself.

  1. cheryl says:

    Wow. I read her comments and compared it to the known facts of her situation. She is full on delusional. Having her husband deported on her word, and starting a non profit focused on “abduction” (her term) probably does not help her stay grounded in reality. She seems trapped in a conundrum of applying her own words to get results, but it not working out ultimately.

  1. lisa says:

    oh does she know anyone whose kids were abducted?

    because even though she tries hard, hers werent

  1. Green Is Good says:

    Her children were NOT abducted. That is all.

  1. LAK says:

    At this point one has to question the judgement of people on Capitol hill for giving her a platform.

    Do they not do any research on the people they associate themselves?

    Actually, considering how many politicians took up with the Duggars, perhaps I answered my own question.

  1. HK9 says:

    Who gave this woman a platform on Capitol Hill??!!?? How does she keep doing this???

    1. Pumpkin Pie says:
    2. I don’t like saying this but I think a “gag order” should be in place. I don’t know if that’s a practice in the US but in DM there are stories about gag orders quite often. Everything that comes out of her mouth is bs and irresponsible and might be detrimental to her children on the long run – that could be the case already. Also, as it was mentioned upthread, slanderous towards her ex.
    1. Giddy says:

    I absolutely agree about a gag order. Everything that comes out of her mouth is not just an exaggeration, but an outright lie. And the Rep. who allowed her this platform has been woefully misinformed of the truth of this situation.

  1. Insomniac says:

    Is anyone in the media calling her out on this crap? I read that court document and she is so clearly misrepresenting what happened. I’m amazed some father’s rights group hasn’t jumped on this.

  1. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    This woman is a monster, point blank.

    It’s not about what’s good for her children or what she can compromise to make their lives better. It’s all about her. It might sound dramatic but I’m starting to believe she’s a danger to the kids. It’s all good now because they’re young and cute but will and ego like hers be able to handle when they get mouthy and rebellious?

    If these are the lengths she’ll go to to punish a guy who basically has never fought for anything more than contact with his children?

    Good luck kids, your mom is a nutcase.

  1. BrandyAlexander says:

    I guess it was to protect her kids that she needed to post nine separate photos of herself on IG.

  1. holly hobby says:

    OMG Congress don’t you have better things to do than listen to this delusional A-hole? Congress can’t do anything about instituting laws against the judiciary because guess what? American govt is comprised of 3 branches (executive, judicial and legislative!). The Judiciary interprets the law and considers whether the laws made by Congress is constitutional! Congress cannot tell the judiciary what to do. That is why it’s called a balanced govt, people!

    Also, this decision was made on a local level – CA court. Correct me if I’m wrong but Congress doesn’t have reach in that too. What a waste of taxpayer’s money.

    I am done with this case. It is open and shut. She wouldn’t be in this predicament if she didn’t lie and got her ex kicked out of the US.

    The way people ignore the facts and the law just makes me rage. Some people are gullible to think she deserves custody of her children because she’s an “American mom” and Americans are the superior citizens of the world. Pffft.

  1. prism_go says:

    She cares WAY more about herself than those children. Clear as day. Good thing her husband got out when he could.

  1. jessiebes says:

    There is a lot of support for her on other sites. I think this is why she got to voice her opinion on Capital Hill. Celebitchy is one of the few sites who actually call her out for her crap – and let commenters post the links to the court documents.

    But people don’t read, don’t educate themselves. They just see a grieving mother who misses her children. And people will side by that. Not all people of course.

  1. Montrealise says:

    I am now convinced beyond doubt that she will refuse to return the children to their father at the end of the summer.

  1. Becks says:

    Sometimes I wonder if all this very public airing of their private family business, and the extremely aggressive push that Kelly is making to gather public outrage and public sympathy against the father ever depresses him.

    I can’t help but think there must be some days when Daniel Giersch dreads getting up in the morning to see what new shenanigans she has been pulling.

    I wish there was a way for him to know that he also has a lot of people that support him. It would be very easy to give in to hopelessness that no matter how reasonable he is trying to be, how much he wants to be a good co-parent, that she just never stops flinging crap at him.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here – hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy

Use the “Report this comment as spam or abuse” link to ask the moderators to delete a comment if it’s offensive. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please e-mail cbcomments at gmail.com to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you

  1. Luca76 says:
  2. She is just a narcisstic jerk. I think she’s the one trying to abduct the kids.

  1. Lara K says:

    She is so loathsome. I have to wonder what will happen in another 3-4 years when the kids are old enough to really challenge their parents and see everything on the internet. 8 is still little, but 12? I can see her son totally rebelling.
    Of course she will then claim her ex brainwashed her children against her, because what else could it be?

  1. Freebunny says:

    Well, her acting career was over, she found a new one.

    1. Norman Bates’ Mother says:
    2. The Duggars have no clue what “slander” is and she clearly has no clue about “unlawful” and “abduction” (and Giersch could actually accuse her of multiple cases of slander and win). By speaking publicly about this issue, she diminishes the meaning of the real parental abduction cases, making it sound like a joke – “Oh, poor old me, my ex-husband whom I deported, abducted our American-German citizen children with a permission of a judge and took them to some horrible, horrible place in a third-world called Monaco. Now I have to fly there every few weeks without having to pay a cent and because I’m so broke, the children have to spent vacations with me in the Hamptons instead of Cabo”. I’d like to hear her trying to explain in detail how exactly her ex unlawfully abducted the children, when everyone knows and can read a legal document allowing him to live with them in Europe. She speaks in broad terms, screaming Constitution and America right an left but her statements are empty, with no actual merit.
    1. whipmyhair says:

    Words are hard, ok?!

    Learning them is difficult enough, without trying to learn the meanings.

  1. Liberty says:

    + 1 for EVERYTHING you wrote here: “—She’s treating this like child abduction when it’s not, it was a judge’s decision. Yes, I should not assume that her ex is as reasonable as mine, but I’m reasonable too. You have to be when you’re co-parenting. This woman just does not seem to get it at all.”

  1. littlemissnaughty says:

    Not liking something doesn’t make it a crime. What a nutjob. I sincerely doubt that her ex is on the same level of crazy simply because the crazies cannot keep quiet.

    Also, Instagram really makes everyone look like a narcissist, doesn’t it?

    1. Gretchen says:
    2. I just can’t understand how she (or her lawyer) think this is a good strategy. She may be able to garner some public sympathy, but surely the courts and judges who have dealt with her case are going to feel increasingly antagonised with her outspoken and consistent misrepresentation of her situation…that will not help her in the long run.
    1. BearcatLawyer says:

    It is a terrible strategy. The better plan would have been to not get her ex’s visa revoked so they could share custody in CA or NY. As the kids grew older and started attending school, making friends, and getting involved in more activities (like sports or music) here in the US, it would have been more difficult for a family court to justify uprooting them to live overseas with their dad. If Giersch were unable to secure a green card or other long-term US work visa, she probably could have kept them in the US most of the time and the burden likely would have shifted to Giersch to travel to see the kids.

    • Gretchen says:

      Yes, exactly! I feel a lot of sympathy for people dealing with international child custody issues, but she has so clearly tried to manipulate the system to forcibly remove the father from their children’s lives. She sabotaged any possibility for a more equal custody arrangement in the US because she wanted to “win” on her terms rather than ensure the best outcome for her children.

    • Becks says:

      With the benefit of hindsight, everything you said is spot-on.

      She never, ever considered the ruling would come to this. She either thought, or her lawyers convinced her it was a slam-dunk that he would get turfed out of the U.S. and her way would be free and clear.

      She was willing to play dirty (using the threat of her false allegations to pressure Daniel to sign away his parental rights, and then when he didn’t fold, she probably felt she had to go ahead and let her lawyer phone in the allegations).

      What I don’t get is WHY on earth is she allowed to characterize this as parental abduction.?!?

    • Daisy says:

      And now the longer the kids are in Monaco, in a settled environment with grandparents, school, friends, extracurriculars, the harder it will be for a judge to uproot them to move them back to the US. Giersch’s case for retaining custody just gets stronger and stronger, and I’m happy about that. And as the kids get older, the more they will be able to say what they want to do.

      Based on what I read in the judgment, Kelly seems to see the kids as extensions of herself used for publicity. Giersch seems to want the best for the kids.

  • anne_000 says:

    I wonder if Daniel and his lawyer realize that they’d better get the transcripts and any audio and video of her speech in case they need to show it to a judge to prove that she’s being publicly antagonistic and not willing to co-parent peaceably.

    I hope the judges see that she’s labeling her kids’ dad as a kidnapping criminal and that she believes any US court judgments that are not entirely in her favor are illegal and should not be respected.

    She keeps sabotaging herself imo.

  1. Tough Cookie says:

    SOOOO thirsty. The acting roles have dried up and she has seized on this “international child abduction.”

    1. Lola says:
    2. I feel for women that have fallen in love with men, have children and have gone to live in the men’s country. Later on decide that they are not in love anymore with the man, or they don’t want to live in -place name of country here – and then have to battle to get their children out of said country because they never had any rights in said country to begin with, for example. I can’t feel sympathy for her. I wonder if she is actually doing any good, I mean, women that have read this play out in the media, with no recourses to go to the media, would they quote her at all if they are going through a similar situation? And true, you can raise children in different countries, not ALL children of the world live in the US.
      I have to stop reading these articles, they affect me I must admit.
    1. Molls says:

    Lola-
    This would be me.
    I moved to the UK while pregnant so that my daughter could know her father.

    Eleven years later, we divorced and my ex has decided he wants full custody, resident parent. He has changed the schools of both (we had another daughter) girlies and he didn’t even mention it to me.

    He lives with his parents now and lets me have our daughters 4x a month.
    His parents are involved in all decisions and if I do hear of them, it is through my daughters or a mutual acquaintance.

    Heartbreaking.

    We are going to court next month, but it doesn’t look good for me.

    There is no legal aid here in the UK to help me, so I will have to represent myself.

    I have no family here.

    It’s a very lonely life.

    I will stay to have whatever crumbs I am offered, but yes, heartbreaking.

  • jwoolman says:

    The United States is a huge country, so there are parents in similar situations here who live several thousand miles apart. They can still manage to co-parent, and often decide to simply have the kids stay with one parent for school and with the other for school vacations. A friend managed to get a perk from his job letting him travel to visit his kids during the school year as well.

    This woman is too much. She has no business talking about international abductions since she hasn’t a clue what the words mean. She really should not be allowed around those kids unsupervised and should have a thorough psych evaluation through family court. This is not normal behavior. Who knows what garbage she is going to poison those kids with this summer.

  • Montrealise says:

    There was a case of a young woman from Montreal who married a foreign student from Saudi Arabia and went to live with him in his country, where they had three children. He turned out to be controlling and violent; however, she could not leave him, much less leave the country, because under Saudi law, husbands have total control over their wives. At her family’s urging, the Canadian government intervened and he agreed to let her return to Canada – but without the kids. Saudi law gives fathers sole custody of their children and mothers have no rights whatsoever, so there is nothing Canada can do and of course, the Saudi government is refusing to intervene. She has decided to stay with her abusive husband rather than be separated from her kids.
    For Kelly to compare her situation to something like this is beyond disgusting.

  1. Sister Carrie says:

    Why is she even allowed a platform? And the “serious” face pics are beyond silly. I’m surprised she didn’t throw on some glasses to appear extra-intellectual and informed. Which is the polar opposite of what Kelly is.

    1. Mila says:
    2. “I see a lot of young women here today who will probably never marry a foreigner after hearing these stories,” she laughed. “They’re cute. The accents are amazing — but they’re expensive accents.”
    3. woah. holy crap.
    4. its not like i was a fan of hers because i also had the opinion that she used the children to hurt her ex but now she proudly came out as a racist. it annoyed me when she played the “my children are us citizens” card to appeal to certain segments but now its very clear that the rest of the world is garbage for her.
    1. Cran says:

    “They’re cute. The accents are amazing – but they’re really expensive accents.”

    The really sad thing is that whole statement can be used in reference to her children. Lol.

  • WinterLady says:

    I’m not sure her comments can be classified as racist, but it definitely is xenophobic. I can imagine in more trying moments her ex and his family have plenty to say about her. She is becoming the poster child for the “ugly American”. Woman, you brought this on yourself.

  1. cheryl says:

    Wow. I read her comments and compared it to the known facts of her situation. She is full on delusional. Having her husband deported on her word, and starting a non profit focused on “abduction” (her term) probably does not help her stay grounded in reality. She seems trapped in a conundrum of applying her own words to get results, but it not working out ultimately.

  1. lisa says:

    oh does she know anyone whose kids were abducted?

    because even though she tries hard, hers werent

  1. Green Is Good says:

    Her children were NOT abducted. That is all.

  1. LAK says:

    At this point one has to question the judgement of people on Capitol hill for giving her a platform.

    Do they not do any research on the people they associate themselves?

    Actually, considering how many politicians took up with the Duggars, perhaps I answered my own question.

  1. HK9 says:

    Who gave this woman a platform on Capitol Hill??!!?? How does she keep doing this???

    1. Pumpkin Pie says:
    2. I don’t like saying this but I think a “gag order” should be in place. I don’t know if that’s a practice in the US but in DM there are stories about gag orders quite often. Everything that comes out of her mouth is bs and irresponsible and might be detrimental to her children on the long run – that could be the case already. Also, as it was mentioned upthread, slanderous towards her ex.
    1. Giddy says:

    I absolutely agree about a gag order. Everything that comes out of her mouth is not just an exaggeration, but an outright lie. And the Rep. who allowed her this platform has been woefully misinformed of the truth of this situation.

  1. Insomniac says:

    Is anyone in the media calling her out on this crap? I read that court document and she is so clearly misrepresenting what happened. I’m amazed some father’s rights group hasn’t jumped on this.

  1. The Eternal Side-Eye says:

    This woman is a monster, point blank.

    It’s not about what’s good for her children or what she can compromise to make their lives better. It’s all about her. It might sound dramatic but I’m starting to believe she’s a danger to the kids. It’s all good now because they’re young and cute but will and ego like hers be able to handle when they get mouthy and rebellious?

    If these are the lengths she’ll go to to punish a guy who basically has never fought for anything more than contact with his children?

    Good luck kids, your mom is a nutcase.

  1. BrandyAlexander says:

    I guess it was to protect her kids that she needed to post nine separate photos of herself on IG.

  1. holly hobby says:

    OMG Congress don’t you have better things to do than listen to this delusional A-hole? Congress can’t do anything about instituting laws against the judiciary because guess what? American govt is comprised of 3 branches (executive, judicial and legislative!). The Judiciary interprets the law and considers whether the laws made by Congress is constitutional! Congress cannot tell the judiciary what to do. That is why it’s called a balanced govt, people!

    Also, this decision was made on a local level – CA court. Correct me if I’m wrong but Congress doesn’t have reach in that too. What a waste of taxpayer’s money.

    I am done with this case. It is open and shut. She wouldn’t be in this predicament if she didn’t lie and got her ex kicked out of the US.

    The way people ignore the facts and the law just makes me rage. Some people are gullible to think she deserves custody of her children because she’s an “American mom” and Americans are the superior citizens of the world. Pffft.

  1. prism_go says:

    She cares WAY more about herself than those children. Clear as day. Good thing her husband got out when he could.

  1. jessiebes says:

    There is a lot of support for her on other sites. I think this is why she got to voice her opinion on Capital Hill. Celebitchy is one of the few sites who actually call her out for her crap – and let commenters post the links to the court documents.

    But people don’t read, don’t educate themselves. They just see a grieving mother who misses her children. And people will side by that. Not all people of course.

  1. Montrealise says:

    I am now convinced beyond doubt that she will refuse to return the children to their father at the end of the summer.

  1. Becks says:

    Sometimes I wonder if all this very public airing of their private family business, and the extremely aggressive push that Kelly is making to gather public outrage and public sympathy against the father ever depresses him.

    I can’t help but think there must be some days when Daniel Giersch dreads getting up in the morning to see what new shenanigans she has been pulling.

    I wish there was a way for him to know that he also has a lot of people that support him. It would be very easy to give in to hopelessness that no matter how reasonable he is trying to be, how much he wants to be a good co-parent, that she just never stops flinging crap at him.

Commenting Guidelines

Celebitchy aims to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here – hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy

Use the “Report this comment as spam or abuse” link to ask the moderators to delete a comment if it’s offensive. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please e-mail cbcomments at gmail.com to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s