JAMIE GRACE'S "FIGHTER": DEDICATED TO FAMILY COURT VICTIMS!

CT MEDIA BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC THROUGH JUDICIAL-MEDIA COMMITTEE!

By Elizabeth A. Richter

In the fall of 2014, I began to report on the inappropriate relationship between the CT Judicial Branch and the CT Media via The Judicial-Media Committee established by the CT Judicial Branch. The following are links to the articles I wrote on this subject:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-i-support-rep-minnie-gonzalez-and.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-hartford-courant-disgraces-itself.html

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/06/rerun-on-explanation-of-how-ct-media.html

Since this story broke, I have attempted to obtain information from the CT Media regarding how they could agree to such an obviously unethical arrangement with the CT Judicial Branch.  In preparation for this particular article, on August 4, 2015 I had my offices send out the following standard letter to a broad range of broadcast and print reporters:

Dear    :

As you may know, The Divorce in Connecticut website has called into question the Media's involvement in the CT Judicial Branch's Judicial-Media Committee.  For some of this commentary, please see the link below:

http://divorceinconnecticut.blogspot.com/2015/06/rerun-on-explanation-of-how-ct-media.html

At this time, I am preparing to write another blog in connection to this issue on behalf of Divorce in Connecticut.  I am interested in getting your response to the charge that the Media's involvement in the Judicial-Media Committee represents a breach of its journalistic ethics.  Can you provide a comment to me in regard to this issue?

Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

This inquiry was sent to the following journalists:

1. Carolyn Lumsden, Hartford Courant

2. Tom Condon, Hartford Courant

3. Andrew Julien, Hartford Courant

4. Peter Pach, Hartford Courant

5. Thomas Scheffey, CT Law Tribune

6. Karen Florin, The Day of New London

7. David Ward, WFSB-TV, Channel 3

8. David Iversen, WTNH-TV, Channel 8

I also sent an inquiry to Mr. Paul Singley, the current President of the CT Society of Professional Journalists.

I did not hear back from a single one of these journalists in response to my inquiry.  My only way of understanding this is that CT journalists as a whole do not think that they need to be accountable to the public for providing accurate information in articles and broadcasts they present.  To me this comes across as arrogant and irresponsible.

I first attempted to obtain information regarding the Judicial-Media Committee on September 16, 2014 when I reached out to Nancy Schoeffler, Deputy Metro Editor of The Hartford Courant who had just joined the Committee. In my first email, I discussed the issue of audio recordings and persons with disabilities which had been a focus of the Committee. I stated, "I thought it might interest you to know that several litigants with disabilities have requested the opportunity to have audio recordings of the legal proceedings in their legal matters and have faced obstruction and inconsistent rulings from judges and administrators in response to those requests." A report dated 2009 on audio recordings in judicial proceedings produced by the Judicial-Media Committee had made it clear that persons with disabilities had the right to those recordings.

In response, Ms. Nancy Schoeffler responded, "Thanks for your very interesting letter." She continued to say she was new to the committee and would need to become more informed before she could answer to my concerns. She mentioned that the next meeting of the Committee would be in January and said that as the date of the meeting drew closer that she'd like to meet with me stating as follows, "I'd like to meet with you to discuss it a bit closer to the time of the meeting, perhaps in November of early December."

I followed up on that very same day with a few more details regarding the ADA and finished up by mentioning what was most important to me, i.e. my ethical concerns regarding the existence of the Judicial-Media Committee itself. These comments were as follows:

"There is a serious question out there that litigants have as to why the Media such as The Hartford Courant has not investigated the judicial corruption that plagues the CT Judicial Branch, particularly in connection to family Court where the stories are really tragic and saddening." I stated that as I investigated this issue, "I stumbled across this Judicial-Media Committee where it appears that members of the Media are socially interacting with Judges and Attorneys on this Committee, spending time interacting with one another, establishing relationships and building trust, to the point where I am beginning to wonder whether the media has been able to maintain its objectivity under the circumstances and whether the media is capable of doing the kind of hard hitting investigative reporting it should be doing because it has been kind of waylaid and pacified by the intentional friendship building of the CT Judicial Branch."

I finished up this email by addressing Nancy directly, "I just wanted to run that by you because I may eventually write about these matters. Do you have any thoughts on this?"

I sent a follow up email to Nancy Schoeffler expressing similar concerns on October 4, 2014 and also October 27, 2014 and received no response from Ms. Schoeffler. My October 27, 2014 email stated, "I believe that the ongoing meetings between media representatives and employees of the CT Judicial Branch is fundamentally unethical and unfair to Family Court Litigants whose concerns have largely been abandoned because members of the media have lost their ability to be objective regarding the corruption of the CT Judicial Branch and its wrongdoing because of the friendships they have formed with judges, attorneys, and judicial branch employees."

I did not receive any response from Ms. Nancy Schoeffler in response to either of these emails.  I do have a problem with Ms. Schoeffler thanking me and inviting me to fantasy meetings and subsequently blowing me off.

I again wrote to Ms. Schoeffler on December 29, 2014 stating, "It is my view that the special relationship which the CT Judicial Branch is able to develop with the media via the Judicial-Media Committee puts at risk the watch dog role that media should be playing in regard to the Branch. When you develop those personal relationships with CT Judicial Branch leaders, it then becomes easy to dismiss folks like me who critique the Judicial Branch as a bunch of kooks because you haven't gotten to know us as well and you haven't been able to establish a trusting connection with us or an understanding of where we are coming from since these same media members are not getting together with us regularly."

On January 12, 2015, I did finally receive a response from Ms. Nancy Schoeffler basically telling me that the Judicial-Media Committee meeting had been delayed until February 2015. She stated, "I will be happy to share your concerns with the committee when it does meet."

I immediately responded to Ms. Schoeffler telling her that the ethical questions I had regarding the Judicial-Media Committee really had to do with The Hartford Courant itself stating, "The question I really have is for you and by extension, The Hartford Courant itself. Can you be a member of the Judiciary-Media Committee and maintain your integrity as a journalist and report objectively regarding what is happening with the CT Judicial Branch and continue with your watchdog role. Isn't your participation in the Judiciary-Media Committee a fundamental violation of your professional ethics?"

Interestingly enough, it was right at that time that family court attorneys in the Eric Foy v. Lisa Foy case threatened me with jail if I refused to provide the sources in an article that had appeared on the Divorce in Connecticut website regarding that case. At the time, I hired Attorney Daniel Klau to defend me in court regarding my rights as a journalist. What I didn't know, however, is that Attorney Klau at one point was also a member of the Judicial-Media Committee. You have to wonder about the timing of this action against me which resulted in $1,500 in legal fees and the considerable trauma of being dragged into court and threatened!

I never heard from Ms. Nancy Schoeffler again.

The next meeting of the Judicial-Media Committee ended up taking place in March 2015, not February, and has not met since then. From the minutes of the meeting, it appears that Ms. Schoeffler did as she said she would and brought up some of my ADA concerns. However, the details of what she actually said are unclear from the report in the minutes. In a followup email to her dated May 21, 2015 I stated, "I will again maintain that a Committee of this kind [Judicial-Media Committee] is a violation of journalistic professional ethics unless journalists are going to give critics of the CT Judicial Branch equal time and intelligent coverage of their concerns."

The "Report of Connecticut Judicial-Media Committee's Survey Subcommittee" Including "Recommendations Developed From October 2007 Survey of Judges and Journalists" details plans for establishing an intimate and cozy relationship between officials of the CT Judicial Branch and Members of the Media, which even included Maura Casey, then editorial page writer for The New York Times.  These plans included a panel presentation for the CT Judicial Branch on topics such as decision-making concerning editorials, degree of reliability required before publishing investigative articles, etc. etc.  It also involved providing opportunities for clerks and other staff to meet with the Media and chat with each other about their jobs, allowing for the opportunity for Media to tour the courts and clerks to visit news organizations.  And on and on.

We are still waiting not only for the CT Media to take responsibility for their unethical behavior, but also for a smidegeon of that intelligent coverage I mentioned. Silence is not going to make media critics go away, and it is not going to rectify the wrongdoing that the media has perpetrated for the last decade by selling out and neglecting the concerns of family court victims.

CT LAW TRIBUNE ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER FORMER CLIENTS CAN GET THEIR FILES BACK FROM ATTORNEYS!

Mark Dubois of the CT Law Tribune reports as follows:

"Clients fire lawyers and vice versa. The rub comes when the former client wants the file and the lawyer won't give it up. Sometimes it relates to outstanding fees, other times, hurt feelings are at the core of the dispute. Sorting out who owns what can be tricky. A recent American Bar Association opinion tried to offer some guidance..."

Read more: 

http://www.ctlawtribune.com/id=1202735043564/Mark-Dubois-Clients-Can-Reclaim-Much-of-Whats-In-Their-Files#ixzz3jY6cUGrn

KELLY RUTHERFORD: DECISION WAS ALREADY MADE BEFORE WE WALKED INTO THE COURTROOM!

Esther Lee of US WEEKLY reports as follows:

"Heartbreaking. Kelly Rutherford opened up about her heartbreaking custody battle in a new interview with Good Morning America on Friday, Aug. 14, telling Robin Roberts about her efforts to keep her kids, Hermes and Helena, in America, while her ex-husband Daniel Giersch wants them in Monaco.

"I walked into a courtroom where everything felt like it was already done. It was a done deal," Rutherford, 46, told Roberts of Tuesday's hearing, where a judge ruled that the children had to return to Europe to be with their father. "And his mother 

was sitting there with plane tickets, smiling, ready to take them. Nobody had heard our argument."

Rutherford and the German businessman have been engaged in a bitter custody battle since they split in December 2008, while she was pregnant with her youngest. The latest hearing was held after Rutherford refused to fly her kids back to Monaco last week as previously scheduled. Giersch then accused her of child abduction..."

Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kelly-rutherford-opens-up-about-heartbreaking-custody-battle-2015148#ixzz3iqfaXekp
Follow us: @usweekly on Twitter | usweekly on Facebook

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, JULY 30, 2015, MINUTES OF THE MEETING!

Task Force to Study the Statewide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

The Task Force to Study the Statewide Response to Minors Exposed to Domestic Violence

MEETING MINUTES Thursday, July 30, 2015 1:00 PM in Room 2A of the LOB

The meeting was called to order at 1:15 PM by Chairman, Karen Jarmoc

The following committee members were present:

Karen Jarmoc, Garry Lapidus, Joette Katz, Rachel Palowski, Joel Rudikoff, Sarah Eagan, Stephen Grant, Elizabeth Bozzuto, Karen O’Connor, Kayte Cwikla-Masas

Co-chair Karen Jarmoc, CEO of Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence welcomed task force members and public citizens in attendance. She stated that members are charged with assessing policy and practice with regard to children and family violence in Connecticut and providing a report to the legislature by mid-January.

Ms. Jarmoc introduced co-chair Garry Lapidus, Director of the Injury Prevention Center at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and Hartford Hospital, and Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Public Health at the School Of Medicine at the University of Connecticut.
Introductions were made around the room: Joette Katz, Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, Rachel Pawloski, Youth Member of the Task Force, Joel Rudikoff, Director of Policy and Budget for the Senate Democratic Caucus, Sarah Eagan, State of Connecticut Child Advocate, Stephen Grant, Executive Director of the Court Support Services Division, CT Judicial Branch, Elizabeth Bozzuto, Judge of the Superior Court and Administrative Judge for family, and Damion Grasso, Clinical Psychologist on faculty at the UCONN Health Center, Karen O’Connor, DESPP.

Karen Jarmoc explained that the group would be going over the charge of the Task Force so that members can stay on target with what they are mandated to do. 

Gary Lapidus then gave an overview of his experience and his vision for how the Task Force can best form recommendations. He has been a practicing Physician Assistant for 35 years and in that time has often seen the effects Domestic Violence on children.  As this task force includes representation from many systems like health care, criminal justice, etc., members representing each should examine their system to identify one or two specific areas that can be improved upon, such as screening for family violence risk. As in the medical field, domestic violence risk can be screened for and appropriate referrals or recommendations made to prevent it.

Mr. Lapidus went on to say that domestic violence is a preventable problem, and that young people must be taught what a healthy relationship is. Additionally, as men are disproportionately involved in domestic violence they must be part of the solution. He called for active discussion in this task force, so that we can listen and learn from each other and listen to each other.

Karen Jarmoc thanked legislative leaders for putting forth the legislation creating the task force. She said that in her role at CCADV, she can recall three domestic violence homicides in the spring and summer of last year, in which children under the age of five were present at the scene and sometimes witnessed the homicide. She felt that there was much said about the adult victim and the offender, but the impact of the incidents on children was not focused on as much. There is more work to do around understanding this impact, as well as systems working together to create a stronger response.

Jarmoc and Sarah Eagan put together a working group in September 2014 to look at the various systems involved with children exposed to domestic violence. This working group issued a report titled “Improving Outcomes for Children Impacted by Domestic Violence.” She shared from statistics from that report:

• In 2014, eleven domestic violence homicides took place, including three in which children were present, some having viewed the homicide. 
• Within the 18 member agencies in the Domestic Violence Provision System, 1,200 children and 1,000 adults are sheltered in domestic violence shelters annually and 6,000 provisional services are provided to children out in the community. 
  
• 26% of domestic violence cases, where there was an arrest, children were present in the home.
  
• 4,319 families that are DCF involved have been identified with intimate partner violence in the home.

Jarmoc stated that the group’s goal is to improve policy and practice across our systems through recommendations. She does not feel the only way to address the issue is through statutory change, but believes that collaborative work across systems and guidance around policies will be helpful. The intention is to: 1) describe the problem, 2) establish targets, and 3) make recommendations by January of 2016.
Some members of the group were asked to make remarks at this meeting. The first to speak was Stephen Grant, Executive Director of the Court Support Services Division, who stated that every discipline with Court Support deals with domestic violence. He listed his priorities as being:

           1) Identifying and addressing barriers to interagency communication and information
                             • Increase amount of information across spectrum
                             • Provision of timely thorough and accurate information to key
                            decision makers
           2) Look at trauma informed evidence based care
                          * 78% of children were either direct victims or witness to domestic violence
                          * These children need support on multiple levels 
           3) Emphasize prevention strategies 

0. In follow-up, Karen Jarmoc asked Mr. Grant if there were differences in policy between the different divisions of CCSD, and whether there is a guide for the 1500 employees. Mr. Grant replied that the themes are the same, but the policies of different divisions are slightly nuanced based on its own statutory charge. He also stated that guidance for the employees is embedded in the over 800 policies of the CCSD. Clinical guidance is provided as well.
   
   Rachel Pawloski, the youth victim exposed to family violence on the Task Force, described her experiences with domestic violence that ended in the murder-suicide of her father and his wife. Ms. Pawloski explained that, prior to the murder-suicide, she had contacted DCF for help in her case, but believes that her caseworker felt that her mother was driving the complaint and that it stemmed from a custody issue. She was not included in the court proceeding on her petition to be protected from her father, and that her mother was not even informed of her father’s appeal. She stated that, although DCF had evidence of prior domestic violence in her case, they claimed that they did not.
   
   Ms. Pawloski believes that many of the issues revolve around receiving documenting and recalling information regarding domestic violence incidents. She feels that appropriate training for DCF workers around how children describe domestic violence issues, is imperative. She felt her worker did not recognize the way PTSD affected her when discussing the violence in her father’s home. She stresses that it should never be assumed that reports of domestic violence are actually custody issues. Additionally, she feels it is very important for victims, including children, to be included in the DCF and court processes, and that children involved in domestic violence investigations and proceedings must be taken seriously.
   
   
   Commissioner Joette Katz thanked Ms. Pawloski for sharing her personal story with the Task Force.
   
   The Commissioner explained that, in future meetings of the Task Force, Mary Painter would be the DCF designee, but she would also be attending task force meetings as she is able to. Mary Painter oversees the Office of Intimate Partner Violence and Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery, and is the expert.
   
   Commissioner Katz proceeded to share Ms. Painter’s remarks, which began with her support of the establishment of the Task Force. DCF’s recent analysis of fatalities of children up to age three confirmed that child abuse is more likely to occur in homes with domestic violence and there is a co-occurrence of risk factors including substance abuse. In children exposed to domestic violence, there is a higher incidence of problems that interfere with functioning and well-being, including physical health, mental health, school performance, and relationships. For children exposed to domestic violence, there is an increased risk of future victimization or perpetrating violence as an adult.
   
   Last year DCF began a three year evaluation project with the Injury Prevention Center of Connecticut Children’s Medical Center led by Garry Lapidus and Dr. Damion Grasso. The Injury Prevention Center has designed and is in the process of evaluating DCF services, by conducting interviews and focus groups with DCF staff and completing in- depth case reviews. The first year report is expected in the fall, and will be used to guide policy, practice and workforce development. Cases accepted by DCF for investigation show that child abuse and domestic violence overlap 30%-60% of the time.
   
   DCF is working to identify gaps and build and expand their service array. They have doubled the funding into services for families by creating Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) consultants within their workforce. There are thirteen IPV specialists in the Intimate Partner Violence Family Assessment Intervention Response (IPV FAIR) program.  DCF is expanding this program to an additional 1 1⁄2 teams. 
   
   The department has designed a multi-systemic adaptation service for families impacted by domestic violence called Multi-Systemic Therapy-Building Stronger Families (MST- BSF). They have experienced tremendous success in building interventions to address such family challenges as substance abuse, problem sexual behavior, and child abuse and neglect
   

   
   In partnership with CCADV an evidence based model for moms and children called “Mom’s Empowerment Kids Club” has been implemented at 18 shelters.
   Additionally, to help teens as they move to adulthood, DCF supports a program called Safe Dates designed to stop and prevent dating violence.
   The department supports the CCADV Pilot Program “Through the Eyes of a Child,” which helps to better understand the experience in a shelter with an aim to reduce trauma.
   
   Recognizing the need to engage fathers, they have introduced a program called “Fathers for Change,” which builds skills, offers restorative parenting opportunities, and enhances motivation, focusing on the role of men as fathers, the impact of substance abuse on parenting, fathers’ own childhood experiences, and the multi-generational nature of trauma and abuse.
   
   In collaboration with the Injury Prevention Center at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, the department is working to create a strong workforce, and to increase effectiveness of IPV and delivery of service, including: 
   

• Developing screening protocols and assisting in incorporating the protocols into the department’s electronic record system
• Evaluating the parent and child service delivery and outcomes
• Identifying specialized IPV training for DCF staff
• Conducting qualitative and quantitative evaluation of changes and practice over time with a focus on recidivism, service utilization, and child and family outcomes        

The commissioner summarized the initiatives that the Department of Children and Families will be continuing to work on.

Karen Jarmoc described the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV). CCADV is a membership organization. Members are the 18 designated providers who assist nearly 60,000 victims in Connecticut annually. These organizations are regional and do not overlap. All providers and advocates are certified as DV counselors and are trained using the same curriculum. This allows them the statutory requirement for confidentiality. On average, there are1200 children in domestic violence shelters in Connecticut annually. CCADV provides evidence-based training on a wide-range of domestic violence practices. All services are held to standards.

Gary Lapidus noted that the Task Force has six months to meet before a report and recommendations are due. The first two months or so will be information gathering and learning from each other. The next two months will be forming ideas around recommendations and strategies. The last two months will be the finalization and a public hearing may be held. A final report will be written.

Mr. Lapidus then introduced Damion Grasso, PhD, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at the University of Connecticut Health Center, and Research Scientist at the Injury Prevention Center at the Connecticut Children’s. Dr. Grasso, presented “Childhood Exposure to Domestic Violence” which can be found on the Task Force Website through this link.

Sarah Eagan stated that she appreciated the focus areas at the end of Dr. Grasso’s presentation. She was struck by the need for identification, trauma is still something underreported by children, and trauma related disorders are often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed in children who have been exposed to significant amounts of violence.

She went on to say that it is important to diagnose children properly to guide appropriate services because as a child ages they may show victimization in different ways. There is a window of opportunity to obtain services they need for that support to be effective.

Joel Rudikoff asked about the more than 1⁄2 of households with known domestic violence statistic from the presentation. What is “known domestic violence?” Isn’t that a form of screening?

Dr. Grasso stated that statistics come from multiple sources and the data should be used as a starting point as to what to expect.

Mr. Rudikoff also asked if there any automatic services children are entitled to under CT state law when there is a report of domestic violence in cases in which it is known that a child is in the household?

Dr. Grasso replied that such knowledge should serve as a red flag that more assessment should be done. Karen Jarmoc added that when there is an arrest in a family violence case that data is captured by Family Relations. She does not believe that there is a protocol or policy around what happens for the child and parents. Multiple things can happen depending on whether or not there is an arrest, whether or not family court is involved, whether or not it is a shelter situation. It comes to different systems at different times.

Kayte Cwickla-Masas, a task force member, is from the Center for Family Justice which is a member of the CCADV and CONNSACS. They are also a child advocacy center and they house the Multiple Disciplinary Team for Bridgeport. The conduct forensic Interviews for children around domestic violence.

Stephen Grant asked if Dr. Grasso was aware of any evidence based trauma practice intervention that specifically targets children who have witnessed domestic violence. He also noted that, while they have had some pilot programs, they often have trouble getting adult victims or family members to have their children participate in these programs. The court does not have the authority to order trauma counseling.

Dr. Grasso answered that cognitive behavioral therapy is the usual treatment for trauma, including domestic violence trauma.

Joel Rudikoff asked what information is available as to what the effects of witnessing domestic violence are, and that there are trauma groups available at no cost to the victim.

Dr. Grasso stated that work needs to be done to remove people’s fear of what is involved with bringing up the trauma again.

Garry Lapidus asked if children in the 18 domestic violence shelters in the state are being assessed by an appropriately trained clinician.
Dr. Grasso stated that they are not, but cautioned that we do not want to necessarily assume that all children exposed to domestic violence are suffering from traumatic stress.

Karen Jarmoc explained that each child that comes into a shelter will get a child advocate BAH [GDL2] or higher. Assessments are done for the child and the parent in the shelter. This assessment should not be defined as a clinical assessment. There is no tool that they use to measure whether the case requires a higher response (trauma exposure). Child advocates confer with clinician when necessary. Therapeutic groups are available for mothers and children while they are in the shelter. She also stressed the importance of proper training for people handling victims of domestic violence in order to avoid re-traumatizing them.

According to Dr. Grasso, what you do with children immediately after a violent incident impacts whether or not they develop symptoms.

Commissioner Katz raised the question of whether the definition of domestic violence in the policy manual should be used in assessments which refer cases to DCF. There are so many mandated reporters in so many disciplines.
Karen Jarmoc agreed that it is important not to make people afraid to seek restraining orders for fear of DCF involvement.

Child Advocate Sarah Eagan asked what the role of schools would be in an effective cross-system means of identifying and screening children exposed to family violence. What does a child suffering from traumatic stress look like in a school setting? Home and school are the places a child under 12 years old spends most of the day.

Dr. Grasso noted that so many symptoms of traumatic stress can look like other mental health conditions without a trauma history.

Karen Jarmoc thanked Dr. Grasso for his presentation.

The 2012 Attorney General report will be sent to members, as well as a link to the workgroup report “Improving outcomes for children exposed to family violence.”
We will be planning a joint meeting with the Model Policy Governing Council for Law Enforcement’s Response to Family Violence to learn more about law enforcement’s response, especially around children.

Garry Lapidus announced the date and time of the next Task Force meeting which will take place on August 12, 10-12 AM in Room 2A of the LOB. Just as some did at today’s meeting, some members will be asked to present for 3-5 minutes. The next meeting will focus on the health care system and its response to this issue. We have invited Brendan Campbell, MD, pediatric surgeon and child abuse pediatrician, Nina Livingston, MD to present at the next meeting and invite the public to attend.
Mr. Lapidus invited everyone to contact either co-chair with ideas and suggestions.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 3:00 PM.  

Kristen Traini Committee Clerk

TASK FORCE TO STUDY THE STATEWIDE RESPONSE TO MINORS EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AUGUST 12, 2015

KELLY RUTHERFORD ORDERED TO RETURN HER TWO CHILDREN TO THEIR FATHER!

A Manhattan Supreme Court judge today ordered actress Kelly Rutherford to return her two children to their father in Monaco.

The ruling came after Rutherford failed to send son Hermes, 8, and daughter Helena, 6, back to their father Daniel Giersch after they spent the summer in New York with the former "Gossip Girl" star.

"From the beginning I have said I will fight for my children," she told ABC News on Monday.

READ MORE:

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/judge-orders-kelly-rutherford-return-kids-father-monaco/story?id=33015199