Kelly Rutherford Lawyer Issues Statement About Her Kids Being Illegally “Forced To Leave The U.S.” (EXCLUSIVE)
Kelly Rutherford is not going to bar her kids from returning to their father Daniel Giersch in France, despite earlier reports on Monday.
However, she is taking legal steps that could result in a landmark decision.
In her case filed on August 5 against Jeh Johnson, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as well as against Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, and others in the Department of Justice and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Rutherford is seeking an emergency temporary restraining order.
She’s asking the United States government to intervene, all in an effort to keep her seven-year-old son and five-year-old daughter from going back to their dad in France on August 19.
According to the court papers obtained by Gossip Cop, the actress is arguing that her case is actually a civil rights issue, and that the California court, which allowed Giersch to take the kids to live in France, essentially (and wrongfully) deported her two chidren, who are U.S. citizens.
It should be noted, by the way, that Giersch, a German national, now lives in Europe, because he was once denied re-entry into the U.S., state court papers, “based on evidence that he had engaged in fraud and other misconduct related to his temporary visa,” which allowed him to live in the U.S. when still married to Rutherford.
The former “Gossip Girl” star is simply asking the government to exercise its authority, and not have the kids sent off to Europe after their current visitation with her.
According to Rutherford’s court filing, “No similar case could be found where children who were born and raised in the United States were deported from their own country, where their mother still resides, to accommodate the demands of a non-citizen parent forbidden to re-enter the United States.”
Gossip Cop reached out to Robert Wallack, the celebrity divorce attorney handling her case.
In a statement issue to us, Wallack said: “There is no new child custody dispute between Kelly and Daniel, and Kelly has no intention of violating the California judge’s order. This is about Kelly’s children and their civil rights. This legal action is the only way for the children to enforce their rights as U.S. citizens.”
He added, “No person, especially an American child, should be forced to leave the United States unless a federal authority makes that decision in a manner consistent with the Constitution. That did not happen with Kelly’s children and we are simply asking a federal authority to make a decision consistent with the children’s fundamental rights as Americans.”
What do you think of Rutherford’s argument?