|
Post by chonies on Jun 23, 2015 10:16:06 GMT -4
I never quite understood how the children (born in US and American citizens) could be ordered to be sent to another country (by a judge in California) to live with the father. For context, I am not a US citizen and live in another country. This article speculates that the judge ruled based on Kelly's interference with the Daniel's efforts to parent, so it was determined he should be the residential parent. I don't know if that's how it usually works, or if this is very unusual. According to the interwebs, the kids were eligible for French citizenship through their father regardless of their place of birth, so if that was duly registered, there doesn't seem to be a legal impediment. I'm kind of intrigued by the legal aspects, but mostly because it sounds like a soap opera, and that is largely because of Monaco. As a non-USian, what are your thoughts? As far as I can tell, it's something like, Kelly ended the marriage while maybe concealing a pregnancy, and then visitation was sort of worked out but Kelly objected and Daniel was deported and his visa expired under maybe dubious circumstances instigated by Kelly, and then the legal stuff happening on Daniel's side gave him custody, and now it doesn't? I have no idea. I'm not a fan of custodial abduction, but I really have no idea what's going on. I don't think I've seen Kelly in anything, and I think her face is kind of strange.
|
|
|
Post by Hamatron on Jun 23, 2015 10:39:53 GMT -4
A judge recently ruled in Kelly's favor but it was quickly pointed out by everyone involved that that judge had no jurisdiction to overrule the previous decision. So, the original one stands.
I think her ex is at the point where he can reapply for a VISA. With the custody situation and the way he was deported, he might not want to. He certainly doesn't have to. But he was banned from the US for a few years. That time may have passed.
This thing is a level 10 mess. From what I can tell, there was probable reason to deport him for arms dealing. So, that's hella shady.
Meanwhile, she is actively trying to keep him from her kids, saying he is abusive (late in their marriage, she stated he threw a laptop at her), refusing to follow judges' orders.
So basically it comes down to... is she an angry ex trying to shut the father of her kids out of their life? Or is she a legal fuck-up who is desperately trying to keep her kids safe? Is there a middle ground?
|
|
|
Post by Ladybug on Jun 23, 2015 10:47:45 GMT -4
I'm not a fan of parental alienation, which is what I believe Kelly tried to do when she maneuvered to get the ex husband deported. This was a convenient way for her to cut him out of the kids' lives but it backfired. A judge saw through this a gave him custody but since he can't live or even travel to the U.S., they live in Monaco. The judge didn't deport the kids. Kelly can travel freely, the father cannot (thanks to Kelly). Unless a parent is a danger to their children, kids need to have relationships with both parents. Kelly tried to prevent that and I can't muster up much sympathy for her.
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Jun 23, 2015 10:55:35 GMT -4
Thanks, ladybug and hamatron! I had a feeling I was missing something, but it sounds like I wasn't. Kelly sounds like a mess.
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Jun 23, 2015 11:29:40 GMT -4
As far as I can tell, it's something like, Kelly ended the marriage while maybe concealing a pregnancy That's not all she did: She never offered any proof that her ex-husband was not the girl's father, did she? Why else not to list him on the birth certificate? That was really shady.
|
|
|
Post by Witchie on Jun 23, 2015 13:37:36 GMT -4
Daniel's attorney presented a letter from the US consulate in Berlin reiterating that his VISA was revoked and must be surrendered. Kelly alleged it was a forgery, but there's no proof of that. The kids are going to be allowed to come to the US for the summer, but everything else is still up for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Jun 23, 2015 15:01:31 GMT -4
As far as I can tell, it's something like, Kelly ended the marriage while maybe concealing a pregnancy That's not all she did: She never offered any proof that her ex-husband was not the girl's father, did she? Why else not to list him on the birth certificate? That was really shady. Fascinating. So, how was Giersch awarded custody of a child whose father is technically not identified?
|
|
|
Post by Wol on Jun 23, 2015 15:16:36 GMT -4
I used to be Team Kelly because we have mutual friends but not anymore. She and Daniel are both awful. She's probably the lesser of two evils but still crazy and I think this situation has made her more so. From what I understand there was plenty of good reason to deport him and he had a nasty temper. No winners in this, least of all the children. And yes, Hermes is named for the brand, but she'll never admit it.
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Jun 23, 2015 15:41:40 GMT -4
That is tacky as hell. Thanks, Wol! Besides a nasty temper, what sorts of things might be possibly true about Daniel?
I know this involves real people and actual children, but I would watch, read or otherwise consume any lightly fictionalized version of this story.
|
|
|
Post by Ladybug on Jun 23, 2015 15:50:48 GMT -4
Thanks for the info, Wol. Daniel is a bit of a blank space in this. He's not well known and he's made few public statements about the situation. The only info we have on him is from Kelly, and I don't trust her. My impression is that he's been accommodating to her up until recently. It's smart of him to stay quiet, because she digs her own hole with her words.
|
|