Why We’re Not Signing Kelly Rutherford’s Whitehouse Petition

Kelly Rutherford, Parental Alienation

Accused of Parental Alienation

“In his (sic) decision, obtained by TMZ, the judge chose to make Kelly’s ex Daniel Giersch the “residential parent” because “Daniel (who lives in France) has facilitated the relationship of the children with Kelly … and Kelly simply has not done so.”

1) It is well documented that Kelly Rutherford engaged in parental alienation against her former spouse. She and her attorney Wendy Murphy can deny it, but is appears to be widely reported that’s Kelly Rutherford didn’t necessarily practice first rate co-parenting skills during her custody dispute.

2) Kelly Rutherford is using her celebrity status to ask the President of the United States to overturn or ignore the California Family Court Judge’s Order. She wants to blame the Family Court System rather than take responsibility for her own actions.

3) I personally think that celebrities should be held to higher standards just like professional athletes. In 2014, the National Football League was clearly pressured by the media and special interest groups to take action on domestic violence incidents among their athletes. But in the case of Kelly Rutherford, the media appears to want to give her a free pass on this.

4) Kelly Rutherford should show some respect for our nation’s Family Court System. Rutherford and certainly her attorney Wendy Murphy know that there are no such things as permanent custody orders. Rutherford can always go back to California Family Law Court to petition the court for a change of the custody schedule.

Instead of playing victim in this situation and possibly inciting other custodial embattled mothers, I would like to see Kelly Rutherford step forward and take ownership of her known present or past issue with parental alienation. Now that’s an issue that is worth supporting!

5/12/2015 Update: Kelly Rutherford got her 100K signatures thanks to Kim Kardashian and Ed Westwick. At the end of the day, she is still a parental alienator. I am certain that many people signed her petition because she claims she is broke and can’t see her kids. That’s far from the truth. She can go to Europe and see her kids anytime. I would bet that she talks to them regularly on the phone. She’s probably telling them that mommy is fighting for you which is parental alienation. She really needs to spend less time protesting and more time rebuilding her reputation with the California Judge. It sounds like she is headed in the wrong direction.


2 Responses to Why We’re Not Signing Kelly Rutherford’s Whitehouse Petition

  1. Violet says:

    This is a tricky issue- The French courts have assumed jurisdiction, so it is not clear that the CA courts order (if they were to issue new ones) would be worth the paper they are printed on….. I am not sure what Obama could do- since her ex has no incentive to apply to come back to the United States and since the Appeals Court (so far) isn’t buying her lawyers’ argument that the kids’ Constitutional rights are being violated. I would make some other argument- re: California ceding jurisdiction effectively by not being able to control what goes on in another country.

    At this point, Kelly says she is broke- she doesn’t have alimony from her ex- he hates her (and is an alienator himself- witness his current TPR petition), so she can’t afford to live over there (where she doesn’t speak language, can’t work in her field), etc.

    It is wrong that kids don’t have access to their mother….but that again goes back to CA court’s decision to cede authority to France. What do you expect her to do?

    • underwatch says:

      Hi Violet,

      1) For those of us that follow these case, this is a lesson on what not to do. Kelly Rutherford should not have alienated her children and been more respectful of the Family Law Court. Kelly is the parental alienation, there is no public evidence that her former spouse is. There are some parents that will never be good candidates for joint custody or co-parenting. I am placing Kelly Rutherford in that category. Also, who turned in the former spouse for the visa issue? And did she really accuse him of dealing drugs and selling weapons in Family Law Court?

      2) Since Kelly Rutherford’s bankruptcy in 2013, her IMDB listing has her appearing on 4 different shows. I am going to assume that she got paid for those parts. I read that she was appearing at a conference on the East Coast. So she has the funds to appear at a conference and not to fly to Europe to see her kids?

      She certainly doesn’t look broke in this photo in DC.

      3) She doesn’t speak the language? That’s not a reason not to see her kids. I have seen plenty of non-custodial parents fly to France/Europe to see their kids from the U.S. One parent packed up and moved there.

      4) I would expect Kelly Rutherford to re-gain the trust of her husband as well as the courts. I have heard of custody agreements where the kids go back and forth between Europe and the States – 6 months in each. It will eventually be time for her kids to want to get into a good college. We have excellent schools and colleges in America. It sounds like Rutherford should take responsibility for her actions, focus on spending as much time with her children as possible.

      See her quote below from Extratv.com. Now as a non-custodial parent, why would you want a 6 year old to perceive that you are fighting for them? IMHO, you should accept your custody time and move on. Your children don’t want to be bothered with this.

      “She recalled telling her son about the organization, a conversation that nearly broke her heart. “I said, ‘I started an organization because I think it’s really important that kids in the future don’t have to go through what you’ve gone through.’ He said, ‘Mommy are you still fighting for us?’ I said, ‘My God,’ that’s the whole point to raise more and more awareness.”

      She’s NO VICTIM! She’s also not the first Non-residential Mother or Non-Custodial Mother. In considering the “best interests of the child”, it appears this judge got it right.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: