|
Post by angelaudie on Apr 16, 2015 13:15:14 GMT -4
Kelly sounds like a straight up narcissist. This mess is of her own doing but she'll never admit to fault.
|
|
|
Post by Auroranorth on Apr 16, 2015 13:45:05 GMT -4
Yeah, she definitely screwed herself over here. I kind of feel like the kids are better off with their dad, who doesn't run to the media every five minutes.
|
|
|
Post by sardonictart on Apr 16, 2015 16:16:05 GMT -4
According to Kelly's Wikipedia page: Also, damn, this is cold: Dayum, that IS cold. That poor man.
|
|
|
Post by MrsOldManBalls on Apr 17, 2015 7:15:09 GMT -4
I've never heard anything nice about this woman. Literally. It's all been negative.
|
|
WestEndGirl
Landed Gentry
Posts: 967
Mar 14, 2005 22:12:17 GMT -4
|
Post by WestEndGirl on Apr 19, 2015 12:11:03 GMT -4
I find this whole thing really interesting.
From what I've read, she brought a ton of this upon herself. She/her team got her ex deported and tried to keep him from seeing the children, and it backfired. Now he lives in Monaco and the children live with him and his parents in what appears to be a safe and happy environment, and he pays for her visits (6x a year) plus she gets the summer. That's nearly 50/50, which is what a judge ordered anyway. She apparently can't move to France without a visa, nor could she easily find work to support herself (I assume).
I'm sure it's heartbreaking for her (and for her ex, had she gotten her way), but she's not helping her cause at all. She won't put his name on the birth certificate but whatever her reasoning is, it hasn't been enough to cause a judge to award her sole custody. She's spending all this money and time and publicity when she could be focusing on her kids and trying to be the best parent possible until they get a little older and have more of a say in where they want to be.
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Apr 20, 2015 0:46:49 GMT -4
She won't put his name on the birth certificate but whatever her reasoning is, it hasn't been enough to cause a judge to award her sole custody. This may be a dumb question, but how is this ex-husband allowed to claim custody of the youngest when his name is not on the birth certificate? (How does one prove that the child is his?) That's just so weird.
|
|
|
Post by Hamatron on Apr 20, 2015 1:41:23 GMT -4
Apparently the child was conceived during marriage, though she was born after their divorce. The husband found out about the child in media reports after her birth (wtf?). I guess it falls under laws where he would legally be on the hook, and it sounds like he wanted to be anyway, because the child was conceived while he was married to her.
|
|
monopoly19
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 462
Feb 9, 2007 8:56:06 GMT -4
|
Post by monopoly19 on Apr 20, 2015 8:00:19 GMT -4
She sounds so dumb. How was she going to keep the him from knowing about his daughter when they already had a kid together!?!
|
|
|
Post by Witchie on Apr 20, 2015 8:30:40 GMT -4
She won't put his name on the birth certificate but whatever her reasoning is, it hasn't been enough to cause a judge to award her sole custody. This may be a dumb question, but how is this ex-husband allowed to claim custody of the youngest when his name is not on the birth certificate? (How does one prove that the child is his?) That's just so weird. This was a bone of contention with the judge. She ordered Kelly to put his name on the BC and she wouldn't. She ordered Kelly to attend parenting classes and to develop a co-parenting plan. Kelly wouldn't.
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Apr 20, 2015 9:10:02 GMT -4
Apparently the child was conceived during marriage, though she was born after their divorce. I see that it was reported that she filed for divorce while she was pregnant with their second baby. So, why would she not put her husband's name on the birth certificate (unless she had reason to believe that it wasn't her husband's baby*)? That's still so weird. *I would imagine that if Kelly had been fooling around with some other guy during the marriage, around the time of conception, something along the lines of a DNA test would have been requested, no?
|
|