Two American Kids Shipped To France In One Of The Worst Custody Decisions. Ever.

Well, yes, the court found that Rutherford had not been totally forthcoming about her work schedule and that her fears of Giersch abducting the children had led her to fail to “demonstrate the level of commitment to facilitating the relationship (with their father) that would be required of a residential parent in a relocation situation.” Wait – why is this considered relocation for her at all? Technically, Rutherford would be moving from California to New York but this is where the court engages in a bit of sleight of hand by equating moving from California to New York (her “relocation,” which is basically where the kids have been living anyway), with sending the kids to Europe. Not once in the judge’s nearly forty page opinion does she ever take notice of the fact that shipping American kids to France is an extreme measure not remotely comparable to legally “moving” from California to New York.

Just as important, the judge whitewashed Giersch’s weaknesses, most importantly his unwillingness to answer any real questions about his life or employment. While the judge found his testimony to be “halting, overly technical and reluctant. . .the court understands the reluctance of Giersch to make legal statements regarding residence and other matters that he may fear could be used against him. . .” So Judge Beaudet basically offered him a pass for refusing to answer extremely pertinent questions to protect him for getting himself into more trouble. In fact, Judge Beaudet went as far as to blame Rutherford’s team for Giersch’s legal woes. She ruled that by Rutherford’s former lawyer contacting the authorities, “he immediately took away one parent’s ability to be with his children. . . I must say the court never imagined that anything like what [former lawyer Mathew] Rich did would occur in this or any other case.” The State Department determined that for whatever legal reason, Giersch is not eligible to be in this country. The lawyer, Matthew Rich said at a hearing in December that he just asked questions to determine if Giersch could be a flight risk. Regardless, how did her lawyer become the villain who stole away Giersch’s children? Without passing judgment on any conversations Mr. Rich had with the State Department, for a judge determining the fate of children to turn a blind eye to legal concerns regarding one parent, seems almost implausible.

Rutherford’s lawyer Lisa Helfend Meyer didn’t do Rutherford any favors by repeatedly offering stereotypical generalizations about how men and women parent differently, to which a slightly irritated Judge Beaudet correctly pointed out that her decision must be gender neutral. But I wonder whether the judge would have felt differently about Rutherford’s challenges balancing work and child rearing if she were a he. The judge dismissed the argument that Rutherford’s uncertain schedule as an actress would make traveling to France at regular, scheduled times difficult. If she were a man who had to regularly travel for work, would the judge have been more understanding?

But, alas, it seems Rutherford never had a real shot anyway because Judge Beaudet believes France may have all just been part of a grand plan — these children’s destiny. She demonstrated how insignificant she believed it is to ship American kids overseas by pointing out that the parents took the older child Hermes on a trip to France once and Rutherford placed the younger child, Helena, in a French school. Judge Beaudet said it “almost seems as if it fits within some plan they had when they first started the education of the children.” Parents beware: Teaching a foreign language, coupled with a vacation there, could lead Judge Theresa Beaudet to interpret that as a sign, all part of a grand plan.

Watch below, via ABC News:

[Photo credit: Jonathan Alcorn]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.