Kelly Rutherford custody case:
December 28, 2015
Vanity Fair might get sued by Kelly Rutherford’s ex for their article. Ex going for restraining order against magazine for “damages.”
August 17, 2015
Medill School of Journalism school graduate, and People Magazine reporter Aurelie Corinthios
“reported Kelly Rutherford lost a federal case to save her kids” but never identified the judge who tossed the case.
Kelly Rutherford had this to say about dealing with power monger, judge.
“Judge Gesmer lacked the capacity, the will or the knowledge to do the right thing, but I will continue to fight for my children, and one day I will land in the courtroom of a decent judge”
which was spoken after the Judge Gesmer ordered her to return her kids to Monaco.
Child custody issues are separate from the divorce action, but here is the Timeline for Kelly Rutherford’s epic custody battle.
However, and Still not reported? The lack of oversight regarding so-called mental health “experts” whose opinions are suspect.
See, Psychiatrists or therapists, and Supervised Visitation monitors. Mental health “experts” are a tactical issue in all custody cases. Sadly, no oversight.
Custody hearings in California custody cases are closed only after a petition for such is made. They are rarely granted. It is different in New York.
(Unless the judge is star-struck. Most judges agree that’s not in the best interests of justice, or the public to not treat stars differently. (But again, some judges are significantly star-struck)
Except when it comes to finance. Ask California billionaire, Ron Burkle, who got lobbyists to make financial records secret. Twice. Burkle failed both times.
Which is not to say there aren’t secret dockets. There are. See Secret Dockets.We recommend reading up on
New York divorces vs. California
Sometimes it’s about secrecy…and sometimes it’s not.
Please note, absent Charlie Sheen’s custody case in which the judge, Hank Goldberg, continues to allow the case to be run by attorneys rather than appoint counsel for the children, FamilyLawCourts.com doesn’t generally profile “celebrity” divorces.
The courts don’t work in part, because judges have too much Discretion to exercise their bias. Often, unless one has financial or personal clout, only media attention encourages judges to actually follow the law.
The lack of media exposure means litigants often receive the kind of justice featured at Los Angeles Judges
However, one reason Katie Holmes might should have taken the long view and filed in California is the need per CCP 170.6, of a free-bounce. Prior to hearing a case, California residents get one free bounce. Katie’s early filing had the advantage; but if the case is bifurcated, that could disappear.
Content copyright 2019. Family Law Courts. All rights reserved.