Reply
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,752
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle


@SydneyH wrote:

Rutherford put her hatred of her ex before her children's well being, no sympathy here imo.


**********************************************************************************

Agree. Here is a link to the court docs.

 

http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/RutherfordRuling.pdf

It's God's job to judge the terrorists. It's our mission to arrange the meeting. U.S. Marines
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,889
Registered: ‎03-13-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle

[ Edited ]

@Luma2 wrote:

NYC Susan  -  You have said many cruel things about Kelly Rutherford, as if you know her personally and have a grudge against her. Perhaps you are somehow associated with her ex's law firm? Otherwise I don't understand how you could speak so heartlessly about a mother, who may have made some mistakes, but loves her children and deserves joint custody.


 

I have no grudge against her and no ulterior motives.  I'm not passing along gossip or anyone's opinion, and of course I'm not associated with her ex's law firm.  I am not at all heartless.  I just believe that every child deserves the love & support of both parents.  It's about what's best for the child, not rewarding a parent who has done everything possible to exclude the other parent.  

 

What she's done and continues to do goes far beyond "some mistakes".  It's all very clearly spelled out in the court documents.  The decision is largely based on the fact that her ex has proven to be far more willing to co-parent than she is.  He wants her to be a part of the childrens' lives whereas she wants him out of the picture.  It's her doing that he can't return to the US, a plan of hers that clearly backfired.  The court ruled the way it did because that gives the children the best chance at being loved and raised by two parents, not just one.  It's all well-documented, and some of what she's done is truly despicable.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.

 

(Lots of other posters have said the same things that I have, so I'm not sure why you're targeting me.  Not that it matters.)

 

 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,889
Registered: ‎03-13-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle

[ Edited ]

@betteb wrote:

@SydneyH wrote:

Rutherford put her hatred of her ex before her children's well being, no sympathy here imo.


**********************************************************************************

Agree. Here is a link to the court docs.

 

http://images.eonline.com/static/news/pdf/RutherfordRuling.pdf


 

This is from 2012.  There are more recent ones available online as well, for anyone who is interested.

 

eta:  Here is another one:  http://harris-ginsberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Statement-of-Decision.pdf

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,829
Registered: ‎03-18-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle


@NYC Susan wrote:

@Luma2 wrote:

NYC Susan  -  You have said many cruel things about Kelly Rutherford, as if you know her personally and have a grudge against her. Perhaps you are somehow associated with her ex's law firm? Otherwise I don't understand how you could speak so heartlessly about a mother, who may have made some mistakes, but loves her children and deserves joint custody.


 

I have no grudge against her and no ulterior motives.  I'm not passing along gossip or anyone's opinion, and of course I'm not associated with her ex's law firm.  I am not at all heartless.  I just believe that every child deserves the love & support of both parents.  It's about what's best for the child, not rewarding a parent who has done everything possible to exclude the other parent.  

 

What she's done and continues to do goes far beyond "some mistakes".  It's all very clearly spelled out in the court documents.  The decision is largely based on the fact that her ex has proven to be far more willing to co-parent than she is.  He wants her to be a part of the childrens' lives whereas she wants him out of the picture.  It's her doing that he can't return to the US, a plan of hers that clearly backfired.  The court ruled the way it did because that gives the children the best chance at being loved and raised by two parents, not just one.  It's all well-documented, and some of what she's done is truly despicable.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.

 

(Lots of other posters have said the same things that I have, so I'm not sure why you're targeting me.  Not that it matters.)

 

 


 

 

NYC Susan, I don't think you could have been more clear and I am very surprised to see the reply you received from Luma2.

 

As I said during the beginning of this case and not knowing all the facts (or any, just the word of Kelly) I took Kelly's side initially. Once I started reading the facts including that she was the one that helped to get her ex's visa revoked, refused to put his name on birth certificate and she refused initial psych exam (which is commonly requested in all custody cases) I started realizing Kelly was the one at fault. THREE different court evaluators that reported to the judge felt the same way as did the judge. I think Kelly has gotten more than the benefit of the doubt.

 

As a single mom myself who received no physical, mental or financial help from my daughters father I will admit that I often lean on the side of the woman. At least giving them the initial benefit of the doubt as I did here in this case but I was proved wrong as the actual facts came out and I changed my opinion when I saw not only how unfair she was being to a father who obviously wanted at least equal time with his children, she also ignored or defied the court evaluators, mediators and the judge.

 

You have stated your reasoning for your opinion throughout this entire thread and have only used the facts of the case, not opinions. I don't see where anyone could say you have been heartless, cruel or have had a grudge against her. That is completely without merit. You have done nothing of the sort.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
JFK
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,889
Registered: ‎03-13-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle

[ Edited ]

@Irshgrl31201 wrote:

@NYC Susan wrote:

@Luma2 wrote:

NYC Susan  -  You have said many cruel things about Kelly Rutherford, as if you know her personally and have a grudge against her. Perhaps you are somehow associated with her ex's law firm? Otherwise I don't understand how you could speak so heartlessly about a mother, who may have made some mistakes, but loves her children and deserves joint custody.


 

I have no grudge against her and no ulterior motives.  I'm not passing along gossip or anyone's opinion, and of course I'm not associated with her ex's law firm.  I am not at all heartless.  I just believe that every child deserves the love & support of both parents.  It's about what's best for the child, not rewarding a parent who has done everything possible to exclude the other parent.  

 

What she's done and continues to do goes far beyond "some mistakes".  It's all very clearly spelled out in the court documents.  The decision is largely based on the fact that her ex has proven to be far more willing to co-parent than she is.  He wants her to be a part of the childrens' lives whereas she wants him out of the picture.  It's her doing that he can't return to the US, a plan of hers that clearly backfired.  The court ruled the way it did because that gives the children the best chance at being loved and raised by two parents, not just one.  It's all well-documented, and some of what she's done is truly despicable.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.

 

(Lots of other posters have said the same things that I have, so I'm not sure why you're targeting me.  Not that it matters.)

 

 


 

 

NYC Susan, I don't think you could have been more clear and I am very surprised to see the reply you received from Luma2.

 

As I said during the beginning of this case and not knowing all the facts (or any, just the word of Kelly) I took Kelly's side initially. Once I started reading the facts including that she was the one that helped to get her ex's visa revoked, refused to put his name on birth certificate and she refused initial psych exam (which is commonly requested in all custody cases) I started realizing Kelly was the one at fault. THREE different court evaluators that reported to the judge felt the same way as did the judge. I think Kelly has gotten more than the benefit of the doubt.

 

As a single mom myself who received no physical, mental or financial help from my daughters father I will admit that I often lean on the side of the woman. At least giving them the initial benefit of the doubt as I did here in this case but I was proved wrong as the actual facts came out and I changed my opinion when I saw not only how unfair she was being to a father who obviously wanted at least equal time with his children, she also ignored or defied the court evaluators, mediators and the judge.

 

You have stated your reasoning for your opinion throughout this entire thread and have only used the facts of the case, not opinions. I don't see where anyone could say you have been heartless, cruel or have had a grudge against her. That is completely without merit. You have done nothing of the sort.


 

Thank you so much!

 

I'm a single Mom too, and I used to almost always side with the woman in cases like this.  But more & more I have seen examples of women feeling overly-entitled.  And lots of manipulation & game-playing.  Fathers have rights too, and -- like it or not - a child does not belong more to one parent than the other.  They're each entitled to equal claims on their children, and more importantly, the children are entitled to have the support and presence in their lives of two parents.  Not just one simply because she is "The Mother" and has decided that her wishes take precedence over everything else.

 

Yes, she has lied repeatedly, defied court orders, and had her attorney report her ex to the State Department as a terrorist (which is why he can't be in the U.S.)   She has attempted to poison her children against him, and been admonished by the court for that many times.  And - despite her claims that her American children were dragged to a foreign and unfamlliar country - the fact is that they have dual citizenship and were already living there 6 months out of the year before any of this happened, as well as being tutored in French and going to a French school in NY.  So they were not forced into an unfamiliar environment at all.

 

She can be with them, but not always in the U.S.  And - since she's the one who had his visa revoked - that's totally her fault.  She tried to push him away, and this is the result.  Her fake confusion about why this is happening makes me ill.  She knows very well why this is happening, and it's in her power to change things but she refuses to.  She wants the children all to herself, and is letting time slip by as she goes on media tours so she can complain.  That's her priority.

 

I don't understand how anyone can read the court documents, and still see her as an innocent victim and a good mother who wants the best for her children.  We're all entitled to our opinions of course, but I think the facts speak for themselves.

 

Thanks for your comments.  I really do appreciate your kind words!

Respected Contributor
Posts: 5,001
Registered: ‎02-02-2015

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle


@NYC Susan wrote:

@Luma2 wrote:

NYC Susan  -  You have said many cruel things about Kelly Rutherford, as if you know her personally and have a grudge against her. Perhaps you are somehow associated with her ex's law firm? Otherwise I don't understand how you could speak so heartlessly about a mother, who may have made some mistakes, but loves her children and deserves joint custody.


 

I have no grudge against her and no ulterior motives.  I'm not passing along gossip or anyone's opinion, and of course I'm not associated with her ex's law firm.  I am not at all heartless.  I just believe that every child deserves the love & support of both parents.  It's about what's best for the child, not rewarding a parent who has done everything possible to exclude the other parent.  

 

What she's done and continues to do goes far beyond "some mistakes".  It's all very clearly spelled out in the court documents.  The decision is largely based on the fact that her ex has proven to be far more willing to co-parent than she is.  He wants her to be a part of the childrens' lives whereas she wants him out of the picture.  It's her doing that he can't return to the US, a plan of hers that clearly backfired.  The court ruled the way it did because that gives the children the best chance at being loved and raised by two parents, not just one.  It's all well-documented, and some of what she's done is truly despicable.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.

 

(Lots of other posters have said the same things that I have, so I'm not sure why you're targeting me.  Not that it matters.)

 

 


I thought her ex could return to the US, it just hasn't addressed the visa issues.  Hasn't he had 3 years to fix it?

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,889
Registered: ‎03-13-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle

[ Edited ]

@Snoopp wrote:

@NYC Susan wrote:

@Luma2 wrote:

NYC Susan  -  You have said many cruel things about Kelly Rutherford, as if you know her personally and have a grudge against her. Perhaps you are somehow associated with her ex's law firm? Otherwise I don't understand how you could speak so heartlessly about a mother, who may have made some mistakes, but loves her children and deserves joint custody.


 

I have no grudge against her and no ulterior motives.  I'm not passing along gossip or anyone's opinion, and of course I'm not associated with her ex's law firm.  I am not at all heartless.  I just believe that every child deserves the love & support of both parents.  It's about what's best for the child, not rewarding a parent who has done everything possible to exclude the other parent.  

 

What she's done and continues to do goes far beyond "some mistakes".  It's all very clearly spelled out in the court documents.  The decision is largely based on the fact that her ex has proven to be far more willing to co-parent than she is.  He wants her to be a part of the childrens' lives whereas she wants him out of the picture.  It's her doing that he can't return to the US, a plan of hers that clearly backfired.  The court ruled the way it did because that gives the children the best chance at being loved and raised by two parents, not just one.  It's all well-documented, and some of what she's done is truly despicable.  It's not conjecture.  It's fact.

 

(Lots of other posters have said the same things that I have, so I'm not sure why you're targeting me.  Not that it matters.)

 

 


I thought her ex could return to the US, it just hasn't addressed the visa issues.  Hasn't he had 3 years to fix it?


 

The court ordered her to recant the lies she told, the ones that caused his visa not to be renewed.  She said that she would, and is supposed to sign the appropriate documents.  But she has repeatedly delayed doing that.  He can't do anything about a visa and he can't return to the U.S. until she does.

 

Her ex agrees that raising the children in the U.S. would be best.  Kelly is the one standing in the way of that happening.  She clearly wants her children back in the U.S, but not her ex. 

 

 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 5,001
Registered: ‎02-02-2015

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle

Hmmm, it sounds like she won't recant because she believes what she said to be truthful.

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,889
Registered: ‎03-13-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle

[ Edited ]

@Snoopp wrote:

Hmmm, it sounds like she won't recant because she believes what she said to be truthful.


 

No, she admitted that she lied.  She agreed to do whatever is necessary to get him back into the U.S., so they can more effectively co-parent together.  But she didn't follow through, which is typical of how things have gone in this case.

 

She wants him out of the picture.  It's very clear.  And she's not the slightest bit willing to compromise or share their children, so that's why the situation is what it is.  She knows he's not a terrorist - She did a horrible thing when she reported him, not only to him but also by denying her children the presence of their father.

 

 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,579
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Kelly Rutherford's Custody Battle

In this case, I would give sole custody to the father.  He seems to be the only one that has the best interest of the kids at heart.  She just seems to be using them as weapons and I am glad to see that he stuck to his guns and fought for them.

 

I dont know what happened with these two, I havent heard of her before this but you dont use your kids. That is just terrible. 

 

I agree with whoever said, fathers have rights too and they shouldnt be taken away for no good reason.