Kelly Rutherford's Mellow Yellow

Flynet

Arriving at a custody hearing on Wednesday in Santa Monica, Kelly Rutherford stayed calm and collected in a yellow tunic top while making her way into the courtroom.

Due in June with a daughter, the Gossip Girl star is attempting to win permission to take 2-year-old son Hermès Gustaf Daniel with her to NYC until the end of March to film new episodes of the show. Estranged husband Daniel Giersch opposes the move.

The couple appeared again today to plead their cases, but after almost two hours of testimony from both, no ruling was made and the hearing will resume Friday morning.

Outside, Kelly told reporters,

“Ultimately I want the best for Daniel, and I want the best for our family. I think about the great love I have for this child. I try to not think [about the divorce] and instead think about my kids and my future … and how lucky I am to be a mother at 40.”

Comments

Is anybody in this mess actually thinking about the child involved? Or is it simply a way to hurt the other person? If so, guess who REALLY gets hurt? The kid.

- Susan on January 22nd, 2009

I agree Susan.
While from the CBB standpoint, her shirt is pretty, so it’s worth glancing at the picture, I can’t really stand what’s happening and how this broken family is playing to the media and the public.
It’s a sad thing that the couple is breaking up before their child is even born. It’s disgusting that they are talking to the media and public about it – especially in such gross personal detail.

I actually thank CBB for not focusing on the salacious side of it, and not making posts quoting either one.

- Mrs. R. on January 22nd, 2009

I do hope she gets permission to take her son along. He seems very attached to her and a few months is a long time to not be with him all the time.

You’d think her estranged husband would just allow it instead of having to drag her to court about it. The stress of that can’t be good for her pregnancy.

- Mandy on January 22nd, 2009

I don’t believe they are giving the media gross personal details. A lot of what has been reported by the media was attained from filed court documents which are public records.

- Trena on January 22nd, 2009

honestly, i feel awful that this is happening but she really has been feeding the media with malicious things about her soon to be ex (not that he is completely innocent of that either, but she is the celebrity so her side gets to the media more). she seems like she is a great mom but i dont know if the right place for their toddler to be is on the set of a show while his mom is busy constantly. i hope they try to work things out for the sake of hermes (p.s. i love his name) and their soon to be beautiful little girl. good luck to both parties and i hope they reach a good agreement for the kids.

- Liz on January 22nd, 2009

This is a really tough situation and I hope that it turns out well for all involved.

- Something About Baby on January 22nd, 2009

When I read the attached link, I was flabbergasted by the statement that they are both “seeking sole custody of their children.”
He is already going on record seeking sole custody of the child she is currently pregnant with? I think they are both behaving horribly about this, and need a little perspective, but IMO that just takes the cake. I am simply floored. Already in a bitter custody battle over their unborn child.

- Delilah on January 22nd, 2009

I’m curious about why anyone thinks her (soon-to-be-ex)husband should just allow her to take their son all the way across the country where he won’t be able to see the child.

Doesn’t anyone think it’s wrong that she wants to take the child away from it’s father?

- Janna on January 22nd, 2009

In my opinion divorce and custody issues are really personal and media should never be involved in them …. it’s so bad for kids because someday ,when they grow up they will find out how it all happened. I hope that they will find out good way to resolve this situation

- martyna on January 22nd, 2009

There is obviously something terrible wrong with her marriage to be divorcing while pregnant with their second child. I feel absolutley terrible for her little boy. He is being dragged through the mud on this one and is so little. Boy if we could only hear that childs side of things.

- Stephanie on January 22nd, 2009

Excuse me , but the judges seem to be forgetting that there’s going to be a new baby added to the mix soon. I honestly don’t know if Hermes would have more stability with either parent, but I believe Hermes should be with Kelly. Wwhen the baby is born she will be physically attached to her mother for at least the first several months. Also, why separate the siblings and deprive Hermes of the joy of becoming a big brother?

- Allison on January 22nd, 2009

I can’t imagine any judge taking a child away from its mother simply because she is working full time. many mothers, including single mothers work. and who is going to give sole custody to a father to an unborn child? — that’s just silly. it sounds to me like the husband is being a little unreasonable.

having said that cases like this must be very difficult for fathers because the outcome of divorce is usually that the father sees their children less. i understand that this can cause a lot of bitterness.

to liz – how can you know who has been feeding the media what information? the court records are public so i think most of the info is coming from these. in the best interest of the children i really hope that the judge agrees to keeping these records out of the public domain.

- zoe on January 22nd, 2009

to Janna: i think it’s a shame that she’s going to have to take her child to New york but that’s her job – that’s how she provides for her children. it is very unfortunate and i do sympathize with the father but that’s the way it is. it sounds like she is only going to be away for a few months so it’s not necessarily a long term thing. i don’t think a child should be taken from its mother unless there is a very good reason and it is clearly in the child’s best interest. this doesn’t look like one of those cases.

- zoe on January 22nd, 2009

The children should not be separated from either parent if the adults are responsible and stable.By the looks of it Hermes and his sister will end up loosing dad or mom if they cannot reach a civil agreement.I understand there must be resentment and anger between them but their demands make it sound like its about defeating the other where it really hurts.Sad.

- eva on January 22nd, 2009

Janna, I don’t think it’s wrong because she’s not trying to take Hermes away, she has to go away for work and she doesn’t want to leave him. That’s the big difference, she HAS to leave for those few months. So no, I don’t think it’s wrong, because it’s one parent or the other anyway. The little boy shouldn’t be kept away from his mother that long.

- Alice on January 22nd, 2009

She wore that to court?

- Marissa on January 22nd, 2009

He says he has been the main care giver in their child’s life, so it would make more sense for the boy to stay with his father.

- Anna on January 22nd, 2009

Alice, she doesn’t have to leave. If I have a job to do elsewhere which doens’t fit my family style and would mean that i cannot see my child for several months, I think it’s quite obvious what would I decide to do. Unfortunately some mothers put their careers first before their children, and this is how it ends.

- Nikka on January 22nd, 2009

I find this case really sad because this is basically a no-win situation. If Kelly is able to go to NY with Hermes then how will his father be able to see him. On the other hand, if Hermes stays in LA, then he will miss out on being with his mother. What I would do is allow Kelly to go to NY with Hermes but Kelly would be required to pay for the father’s traveling expenses so that he can travel to NY often so he can spend as much time with Hermes as possible.
The fact that Kelly is pregnant makes this case more interesting. When the baby is born, Kelly by default will have custody because no judge will take a newborn baby away from its mother unless the mother is violent, abusive, drug-addicted or mentally unstable. I do not see a scenario where Kelly has custody of the newborn and the father has custody of Hermes.

- Di on January 22nd, 2009

I don’t see how anyone could think asking to take the child to New York for work is ridiculous– She has contractual obligations to be there, which she also had while they were still together. I’m sure the plans were never for her to be in New York without her husband or son.

- annie on January 22nd, 2009

I don’t know any of the gory details, so my comment is more generalized: if both parents are capable, stable, and loving (which I imagine or assume these people are) I think the child(ren) should be with the parent whom they’ll be with more rather than with an outside caregiver. So if Kelly’s filming schedule really does leave much of Hermes’ care to someone else, and Daniel works substantially less, I can understand why he would fight so hard to keep the boy with him. I know how important a role a mother plays in any kid’s life, but if it were the other way around and the dad was extremely busy with work, I honestly believe any judge would award custody to the more “available” mother.

- Erica on January 22nd, 2009

Due to the fact that Kelly is still nursing Hermes, I feel that she should be allowed to take him to NYC to continue filming her show. Her estranged husband has more than enough money to fly out to NYC to see Hermes. Also, since Kelly is pregnant, how can her husband demand full custody of the newborn once it arrives? I believe Kelly will nurse her new daughter, although she won’t arrive until after filming is done. If Kelly doesn’t report to the set by the end of this week, GG will have to shoot without her. I feel she should be able to keep her job and keep her kids!

- Colleen on January 22nd, 2009

These things are always sad but if she has to go to New York then Hermes should go with her. If his job keeps him from going too, then they need to reach an agreement. Otherwise, no reason he can’t keep an apartment of his own close by. As someone who split while pregnant, I can’t begin to tell you how stressful it is and (IMO) it’s not a decision taken lightly. Therefore, they must have good reason. I’ll withhold judgement on either of them and hope that for the sake of their children, they are both putting up a good front. Things will work out as they should. (On a CBB note – can’t wait to see what they name this little one – Prada, Dolce, Tibi is cute

- Brannon on January 22nd, 2009

From what I’ve seen, the husband contends that he’s been the main caregiver for Hermes. That’s going to be part of the decision, I’m sure. But generally, this situation is the worst, with such young children involved and allegations of anger management issues on both sides (though frankly, his allegation that she threw a computer at him probably outranks hers that he’d get angry and storm off for a few hours).

The whole thing’s gross, but I’m not inclined to side with the mother just because she’s pregnant or working. Hopefully the court will be able to do what’s in the children’s best interests.

- Grace on January 22nd, 2009

I’m having a tough time understanding the rationale given for Kelly to get preference in custodial arrangements. Although nursing is accepted as the best practice, nothing stops the father from using a milk bank or formula for either child. The proximity of a father is just as important as the proximity of a mother; the father certainly shouldn’t be forced to relocate 3,000 miles away because of the mother’s sporadic work schedule. The pregnancy argument for their daughter is sounding suspiciously like “possession is 9/10ths of the law”.

What seems to have been put forward in court is that the husband says he’s the primary caregiver, and both spouses allege anger issues. All the other points seem to stack the deck heavily in Kelly’s favour, for little more reason than the traditionally-held preference of giving custody to mothers in general.

- Grace on January 22nd, 2009

While I agree with everyone else that it is in the best interest of the child that his parents settle their differences quickly and have no personal opinion of either Kelly or her husband (as I know neither of them), I am surprised by the backlash Kelly has received. No one really knows what went on in their marriage, who cares for Hermes or what the circumstances around their divorce are. She may need to work, especially as she will soon be a single parent of two children.
As for the accusations that she has leaked information to the media regarding her husband, it appears that that information stems from legal documents and not Kelly herself. Many of you may not know this, but Daniel Giersch just sold his story to a German magazine (which is the equivalent of People) and has been embroiled in legal matters in Germany for years.
That said, I think children benefit from being raised by both of their parents, and it is quite premature of anyone to jump to conclusions about another person’s divorce and parenting abilities.

- Claire on January 22nd, 2009

I would like to add that I have read many of the court documents filed in the case online and there are numerous facts in dispute. First, the husband claims that he is the child’s primary caregiver but Kelly disputes that vehemently. Secondly, while the husband claims that Kelly threw a computer at him, the wife denies that and she claims that she called the police on him twice. Thirdly, the husband claims that Kelly hours were very long but she claims that he has greatly exaggerated the number of hours she works. I could go on but it is clear that the court will have sort everything out.

I think it is important to point that for the past year and a half, Kelly, her husband and Hermes have been traveling back and forth from LA to NY and the husband was okay with that until Kelly filed for divorce. I feel personally that Kelly and Hermes should not be punished because she is a working mother. After all, it is not like she is the star of the show so she does not have to be in every scene.

- Di on January 22nd, 2009

Alice -

So it is alright to keep the boy away from his Father that long?

I hate when things like this happen because almost everyone seems to think the child no matter how young it is should be with the mother. The bond between the mother and a child is more important than the fathers. That’s bull!!

I also don’t think it’s fair that just because a woman is breastfeeding a child or baby, that should guarantee her automatic custody!!

Let her breastfeed them all she wants…when it’s her court ordered time with them. When he’s got them, they can still be breast fed! Just because they don’t drink it from the breast doesn’t mean they aren’t still breastfed. If it’s truly about them being breast fed, then by all means, pump and send it along.

- Heather on January 22nd, 2009

Pumping is not that simple. For a woman to keep up her supply she has to continually feed or pump. Sometimes pumping just isn’t possible. Also, it can cause nipple confusion.

- Nicole on January 22nd, 2009

Nikka, if she’s bound by contract she has to leave. She probably signed it before they split, and back then there was no reason why she couldn’t take him to NY with her. She’s not ok to leave him in LA, otherwise she wouldn’t go to court. Do you seriously think she should quit a stable job, when she is single with soon 2 kids??

Heather, I don’t think it’s right to keep him from the father that long, I didn’t word it well. It’s never good to take a child away from either parent, but like I said, in this situation it’s one parent or the other, at least during Kelly’s time in NY.
I assume that for now, he is with her and it’s not right to change drastically his routine by keeping him away from her. And yes, a baby/very small child bonds with its mother first and more. I know it’s hard on the dads to be away and their attachment to their children is just as strong. But it’s probably better for a 2 year old to be with his mother, and hopefully the father can visit, which is better than having the kid take long trips between NY and LA too.

- Alice on January 22nd, 2009

This entire situation just seems awful. They’re both coming off terribly with the things that being said by both sides. It makes me feel just awful for their son and unborn daughter. Neither side has the correct solution. They need some sort of compromise and they seem unwilling to do that. Both sides seeking sole custody makes it seem like their intentions are out of spite instead of legitimate concern for their children.

Also, Marissa, those were my thoughts on her outfit! She looks lovely, but I can’t imagine wearing that to court for a custody hearing.

- Kerri on January 22nd, 2009

i obviously cannot side with either parent,because i obviously don’t know the details,but i do remember when gossip girl first came out, kelly rutherford made comments in several interviews that new york city was not a place she would raise her own children, especially because the wealth of her and her husband would mean her child would likely be raised in the same type of community as the kids on the show. (not that all ues kids act like that, or that she necessarily lives on the ues). so it’s kind of interesting that she now wants to raise her children in new york. i know that the situation has changed, but i wonder if her husband’s lawyers will pull up the transcripts to use against her…

- ellka on January 22nd, 2009

I don’t think we can say that the child bonds more or better with the mother. I flat-out don’t think it’s true. I’ve seen children who are total daddy’s babies, who bawl when he leaves and sulk until he reappears, despite having loving and attentive mothers with them. I’ve also seen babies attach firmly to their mothers in the same way. And then there are the kids who daily seem to decide which parent to cling to based on their horoscope, because there’s no saying which parent they’ll glom onto.

When looking at a family where it’s very possible the kids spend equal time with each parent, as we often do these days with households where both parents work and paternal leave is common, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that a baby naturally is closer to the female parent just because of gender.

- Grace on January 22nd, 2009

Just a few months ago they obviously were together (enough to make a baby) so things must have turned ugly pretty quickly. IMO both parents have the means to travel and share custody on either coast instead of being immature and self serving, unless abuse is involved.

- Lola on January 22nd, 2009

I find the whole situation disgusting and place blame on both parties.

- Silvermouse on January 22nd, 2009

totally agree with mariisa and kerri- what was she thinking wearing that outfit to court. she could have at least worn dress pants.

i don’t know anything about this case really, i just hope everything turns out alright for their children

- jacky on January 22nd, 2009

weird, I wonder what happened, Like did anyone cheat etc.? Or…does anyone know? What a sad situation. ;-( esp while pregnant, things had to be bad to end it now…something MUST have happened. It had to.

I have to say though…as much as I think the child should be with his Mom becuase there is such a bond there thre first couple years…I do also feel for the Dad if she takes him cross country…that will be very hard for the father. I think she should not be allowed. Too sad for Dad..nomatter what happened in their relationship.

I hope they can work it all out!

- Kirstin on January 22nd, 2009

So the little boy is 2 and can be fully taken care of by both parents. So if he is living in LA with both his parents and Kelly has to go shoot in Ny why doesn’t she let her husband take care of him and travle to Ny for visits like they were orginally doing before?
Doesn’t make sense to be. Also I am not punishing her for being a working mom becuase in the same regards her soon to be hubby is a working dad, but no one really seems to give fathers credit, to me there is no difference really it’s just her job requires her to be away from her child.

I have to say it really bothers me when I hear there is no way a court will ever take a child away from his or her mother. Really? if that is so it must be a slap in the face to Men everywhere.Basically saying well no matter how much you love your kids, are there provider, give them security it doesn’t matter your a male, sorry to bad. So now we are going to give your spouse the mother prefernce over you not because she is a better parent, not even if its because it’s in the best interest of the child, but just because she is Female. Makes me sick

- Sage on January 22nd, 2009

By the looks of things, no good will come out of their situation anytime soon. I’m not siding with either parties because, despite whatever personal issues they have with each other, it is never okay to allow them to negatively affect their children. What Hermès and his sister need are two parents that are devoted to their well being and that’s impossible when both sides are constantly throwing jabs and making allegations against the other. It’s time for the both of them to start acting like responsible adults.

- Lily on January 22nd, 2009

I’m confused…people.com has a picture of her wearing a different outfit to court…black sweater and pants (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20254396,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines). Maybe she just arrived in the yellow shirt and jeans, and changed once she got there before going before the judge?

——-

This photo is from Weds. The black sweater photo is from Thurs.

-CBB Staff

- legemc on January 23rd, 2009

Ahh, it all makes sense now, thanks! I just skimmed it and didn’t realize they were in court 2 days in a row…and now I guess it will be 3 days in a row since it says they will resume Friday.

- legemc on January 23rd, 2009

To Sage — I thought Kelly claimed that she had never spent a night away from her son. What makes you think she was leaving her son in LA with her husband before this. I had the impression that they all went to NY together when she had to work.

I’m pretty amazed at the backlash against her. She is only going to NY for a few months, she isn’t moving out there. It will be hard for her husband and I really sympathize with him but I do not see this as a reason to deny her custody. Also so many of the more judgmental comments seem to be based on hearsay — and some of them are so harsh that it makes me wonder whether the posters are somehow connected to the case but it’s probably just me being paranoid!

Obviously there is more to this case than meets the eye. i’m sure that whatever the court decides, that decision will be made based on more complete information than any of us have and in the best interest of the child. Let’s just wait and see.

- zoe on January 23rd, 2009

I was pretty horrifed at first when I read that Daniel filed for sole custody of BOTH Hermes and the unborn baby. However, then common sense kicked in and I realized that there’s probably no way a judge would take a newborn baby away from his/her mother unless there were extremely extenuating circumstances, such as the mother being abusive or a drug addict.

- CelebBabyLover on January 23rd, 2009

i love her shirt. why not wear it to court?

- Fevvers on January 23rd, 2009

the top is H&M!

- vb on January 23rd, 2009

I haven’t had a chance to read through all the comments yet, but my two cents is this: while I think it’s bad that things get so nasty in public, this opposite could be worse. In the UK, the family courts are closed (there are moves to change that now, it may already be changed just recently, I’m not sure) and this has led to such awful cases of children being ripped from their parents by social workers who have gotten away with it because of the secrecy and of many children and parents not having access to their records, again because of the secrecy. There are many MANY other problems that relate to this, those are just two examples. So on that point, I firmly believe that family courts (custody, divorce, etc) MUST be open because the potential for abuse of this system when it could be hushed up is too big to ignore. It’s terrible that little Hermes (stunning child btw, looks just like his mummy!) will probably be able to read the things his mum and dad have said about each other, and see it all in court documents, but IMO, this kind of knowledge is the lesser of two evils, since the children that could and do suffer from closed family courts would be impacted worse.

Secondly, it’s difficult to comment on the issue of taking the child to New York since there have been arrows shot on both sides, and there’s no way of knowing who is telling the truth right now, but with regards to the custody arrangement in a wider sense, I would imagine it’s close to 100% certain that, without extreme special circumstances, Kelly will get full physical custody of the new baby (breastfeeding and all that) with visitation for Daniel, and I would think the same would apply to Hermes, since courts tend to value (and rightly so) the sibling bonding and relationship. I’m not passing judgement on Daniel, but I think he’s probably fighting a losing battle with regards to custody.

- Alex on January 23rd, 2009

Aw she’s having a baby girl, that’s so sweet! That’s too bad that she has to endure almost more drama in real life than she does on Gossip Girl. In my opinion, I think she should be able to bring her son with her to NYC especially since he’s only 2, and its too bad that she and her ex can’t work something out as far as custody/visitation of the boy.

I hope her unborn baby won’t end up with some health issue brought on my maternal stress or something, given everything Kelly’s gone through lately, real and fictional.

- Autumn on January 23rd, 2009

There has been so much mud-slinging in this case that it just sickens me. I don’t know who is in the right. Frankly, I feel they are both in the wrong because they are both going about this custody hearing in the wrong way. I really think they are going to regret the way they handled this.

That being said, I really don’t understand why we have such a double standard when it comes to custody. I mean, just because Kelly has the name of “MOM”, she gets sole custody? I think both father and mother have a right to have custody of their children because they are the parents. I think Daniel has just as much right to sole custody as Kelly. Sole custody should go to the parent who will be able to take care of them the best (not placing them in the care of a nanny for 18 hours a day, but actually care for them) and provide for them the best. Right now, I don’t know who that is. They don’t really seem to have either of their children’s best interests at heart.

I hope this gets resolved soon because it keeps getting uglier and uglier.

- Stephany on January 23rd, 2009

Has anyone read the court documents? They’re available for download on many sites. The documents that her husband’s lawyer filed are in direct contradiction to what Kelly is stating in the documents that her lawyer filed. The bottom line is someone is lying. Also, her husband is not a US citizen. There is a chance that he will leave the country at any time. Kelly has every right to not feel comfortable leaving Hermes with her husband while she is temporarily in New York and like some women have already stated, Kelly is contractually obligated to be in New York for Gossip Girl. It’s not like she’s going on vacation. I really think people need to read the court documents before offering an opinion in this situation.

- Trena on January 23rd, 2009

To CelebBabyLover Says- First I wanted to say both parents are acting childish and I hope that the courts will come to an agreement that would be Equal for Both parents, but I am doubting that since it’s just getting nastier.

But what I wanted to say about he has never been away from his mother. My whole thing was that may be true but if his dad was the one being the sole care taker and spending time with him taking to different places and just taking care of him in general and bonding with his son, while she was filming for how many hours. I would rather have that then having him on a set with some stranger when a parent was Able and willing to take care of him. I also think that it’s strange that the parent who is the one who would constantly be traveling would be the one that would get the child, cause she may have award shows and things like that. So would it make since that if they live in LA and the father is going to be there cause NYU is not there home that is where the child should be allowed to remain.
I sympathize with Kelly but I don’t see a reason at the moment why she should have custody over her husband

I just feel bad for Hermes cause he is being put in the middle of this and I just wish that they will work out something for him because he needs both of them.

- Sage on January 23rd, 2009

I agree with many of the comments. The two of them should try to work things out for the sake of their children but I know from experience sometimes things can get messy no matter how hard you try. During divorce, feelings are hurt, people are angry and often spiteful. My ex fought me tooth and nail on EVERYTHING and it had nothing to do with him wanting to be a good father or spend time with the kids. He wanted to make things difficult. I don’t know what Kelly’s husband’s motives are but I don’t understand why location is a problem NOW all of a sudden. She always traveled as part of her work. He shouldn’t be allowed to use that against her. I hope it all works out.

- Kendall on January 23rd, 2009

The ex is trying to take the unborn child away? On what grounds? Is she an abusive mother? A coke addict? It takes a VERY unreasonable person to file for a sole custody of an unborn baby – unless the mother is a danger to the child. How do you take an infant from her mother, deprive her of mother’s breast, love, comfort, etc? It’s inconceivable to me.

- Martina on January 23rd, 2009

I cannot believe she wore jeans to court. Wearing jeans conveys a message that you treat the matter lightly and see it as no big deal. The top is okay, but she should be wearing dress pants or skirt. That being said, I hope that they can settle this for the sake of the children.

- jadjd on January 23rd, 2009

I seriously think Hermes should be with Kelly, because she’s Mummy and he’s so young- Daniel should NOT and should NEVER have applied for SOLE custody of both the children- that is RIDICULOUS. I have no respect for this man because Hermes needs Mummy and this unborn baby will obviously need Mummy too- what kind of judge would take her babies from her and hand them to Daniel? No way. He should have joint custody or vistation rights.

- babyboopie on January 24th, 2009

This is truly sad, I feel bad for Hermes who is being stuck in the middle of all this. I honestly think they should settle this in a more private matter, what I don’t understand is Kelly is pregnant and I’m sure this drama will bring lots of stress and that’s just not healthy for a pregnancy. I don’t want to take sides because no one really knows the whole truth except Kelly and her husband, but they both need to focus on their son and the well being of her current pregnancy. I hope they settle things between them.

- NELLA on January 24th, 2009

babyboopie, it’s extremely clear you think “Daddy” has no purpose in these children’s lives. I can’t wait to see the expressions on your children’s faces someday when you explain this about their Dad to them.

- Natasha on January 25th, 2009