At the time, she was super-rich compared to 99% of Americans, which I think is a reasonable definition of super-rich. Other people have custody issues and they are nurses and teachers and mechanics. She is not special in this, just able to afford a lot more.

Both of these people were super-rich. Your complaint was about vagueness in disclosure, and I pointed out that while Giersch was specific about availability and vague about content, Rutherford was vague about availability and content was (by necessity) undeterminable. They’ll likely have had to submit some sort of…

A plan that lacking in disclosure on his part. And lacking in validation on the part of the court.

The parenting plans were based on their reasonable expectations of working conditions, hers had absences and his did not - the custody document lays out scenarios for this well. Unless a court has found his work illegal or there’s a police investigation into his work, his work’s not illegal. You know: facts.

C) and do you have independently verified proof that [parental alienation] was not happening in reverse?

Under the agreement, Giersch provided her with housing and a car. Actors, especially ones with Rutherford’s history and a solid reel that can take the place of preliminary auditions, can have more flexible schedules than 9-5ers. Not all the time - sometimes they’re on set for 60 days straight at insane hours - but…

Every single thing you’ve written about Rutherford’s access would also apply to Giersch. If it’s unacceptable that the kids “barely get to see” their mom, then that is what would’ve happened to Giersch if Rutherford had been awarded custody, but worse. For the kids to have seen their dad, they would have had to be…

He didn’t use her job against her, he used the very real practicalities of a majority-travel job against her. This also happens to soldiers - if you are frequently relocating, then it is tough to create a steady home environment. The job commitments are what matter here, not the actual contents of the job; if she were…

He didn’t detail exactly what his job is, but submitted a plan that clearly stated how frequently he’d be home - why on earth would the details of his business dealings be relevant, whether it’s selling plumbing components or running a mercenary company? By contrast, Rutherford’s future job plan could include…

And it is exceedingly creepy that his profession is not revealed and his attorney has insisted that it be kept secret from the mother.

It favors predictable jobs that occur in one location. If a mom was a schoolteacher and a dad a traveling consultant, I’d expect primary physical custody to go to her. If a dad was a nurse and a mom a flight attendant, I’d expect it to go to him. Rutherford’s job fits in the same category as those of others who are…

You are flat out saying that working women don’t deserve custody.

You haven’t adding anything new. The newer ruling

There were four days between your last post and the link I posted. “Old”?

So your definition of “troll” now extends to “person I disagree with posting a new piece of information directly related to the discussion”. That’s totally reasonable.

There was a new court ruling, which I posted a link to. This was the entirety of my post:

Denying one parent access to the children is also not a small issue.

Do you have the attention of a mayfly? I KNOW you never said it was in the EU, because you were a total brat about (erroneously) claiming that I DIDN’T know that it’s not in the EU, which is why I wrote “As you pointed out upthread, Monaco’s not in the EU”. I affirm your point, you call me a troll. Excellent…

As you pointed out waaaay upthread, Monaco’s not in the EU. Why would they care?

But this judge (the one who originally set custody for the dad) has been backed up by the ensuing 4 years of judges - the recent Californian judge was the one bucking the trend. And even then it looks like California judge didn’t understand that Monaco now has jurisdiction on the case, something that was understood by…