California court orders the 'Gossip Girl' actress and her ex-husband Daniel Giersch to work out on the logistics for their kids to spend summer in the U.S. after her custody was halted last month.
- Jun 12, 2015
AceShowbiz - Kelly Rutherford and her ex-husband Daniel Giersch were ordered by a Los Angeles judge Mark Juhas on Thursday, June 11, to work out logistics for their children to spend the summer in the U.S. The judge, however, needs some time until he is able to determine if he has authority in resolving the international custody dispute.
The order was made following a phone conversation between judge Juhas and a Monaco judge to determine which court has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute. The court date is postponed until July 9. Previously, the judges prohibited the "Gossip Girl" star from sending her kids with ex-husband Giersch to Los Angeles.
An attorney who represented Rutherford, David J. Glass, said in a statement, "No decision has yet been made." Glass argued that the Monaco court didn't have jurisdiction to resolve the case. "We believe strongly that the Monaco Court, which was improperly petitioned by Mr. Giersch, will ultimately recognize that its earlier actions in this matter have not substantially conformed with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)," he added.
Rutherford's lawyer upheld the recent Superior Court ruling on this matter. "We are also confident that once the California Court hears all the evidence, it will choose to continue to retain jurisdiction over the matter, and will order the children back to California. As Judge Juhas stated in his ruling on May 22, 2015, the children are only residents of the United States, and can never be citizens or residents elsewhere," so he continued.
Last month, the "Melrose Place" actress was granted sole custody of her children. The judge demanded the children be brought back to the U.S. from Monaco where they have lived with their father since 2012. Just days after the order was made, the judge put it on hold as he was not certain whether the court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.
