Kelly Rutherford Loses Child Custody Plea in California Court - People's Choice Law Group LLC

28 July 2015
Comments: Comments Off on Kelly Rutherford Loses Child Custody Plea in California Court
28 July 2015, Comments: Comments Off on Kelly Rutherford Loses Child Custody Plea in California Court

Kelly Rutherford must bring her child custody case to a different family law court after Superior Court Judge Mark Juhas ruled on Thursday July 23, 2015 that the state of California did not have jurisdiction over what happens with Kelly Rutherford’s children.

Rutherford was fighting for custody of her two children, daughter Helena, 6, and son Hermes, 8, in the state of California. The child custody battle began shortly after Rutherford filed for divorce from then husband Daniel Giersch in 2008 while she was pregnant with Helena.

A judge in Monaco, where Giersch lives, granted him full custody over their children, and Rutherford has been fighting for custody ever since. For nearly 6 years Rutherford has petitioned family law courts to bring her children back to the United States.

She was forced to file bankruptcy in 2013 citing $2 million in debt, $1.5 million in legal fees and exorbitant travel fees to see her children.

Rutherford said in a GMA interview, “My children, not only were they taken away, but they were sent to a foreign country. I don’t even know how you explain to someone what it feels like.”

In Rutherford’s latest court appearance, she asked Judge Mark Juhas to rule she still has a “significant connection” to California. Rutherford has spent the majority of her time in New York City and some time in California. She claims spending time in New York allowed for shorter, less expensive flights to Europe to see her kids.

Judge Juhas wrote in his court decision, “Given the fact that the children have only spent approximately one week in California in over two years, if these children have any connection to California, it is tenuous at best.”

He continued, “The Court does not believe that it is obligated to relinquish jurisdiction to Monaco, only that it acknowledges that it no longer has jurisdiction over the children.”

Rutherford’s lawyer, David Glass, responded to the Court’s decision by saying, “We are extremely disappointed. This court set up the current situation whereby my client was forced to live bi-coastally, but now, the court appears to be holding it against her.”

Rutherford may now be forced to continue her child custody battle in Monaco.

Comments are closed.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is offered for informational purposes only and should in no way be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. Anyone reading content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. The content of this website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts, or settlements. The People’s Choice Law expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this website. Any information sent to the firm by Internet, e-mail, or through the website is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis. Transmission of information from this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship between you and the People’s Choice Law, nor is it intended to do so. The transmission of the website, in part or in whole, and/or any communication with us via e-mail through this site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between us and any recipients. For legal advice please consult a local attorney. We are a Florida based law firm with offices in the State of Florida staffed by Florida-licensed attorneys, and handle cases nationwide with the assistance of co-counsel, of counsel, and local counsel, where permitted. Some links within the People’s Choice Law’s website may lead to other websites, including those operated and maintained by third parties or government agencies. The People’s Choice Law includes these links solely as a convenience to you, and the presence of such a link does not imply a responsibility for the linked site or an endorsement of the linked site, its operator, or its contents. This website and its contents are provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Furthermore, the People’s Choice Law does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this website in a state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Reproduction, distribution, republication, and/or re-transmission of material contained within the firm’s website is prohibited unless the prior written permission of the People’s Choice Law has been obtained.