Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like she’s got some local attorneys handling this for her. Any opinions on why they are DC based and not NY?

Stephen Cullen is very well respected and has handled a lot of very high profile, high net worth divorces. He also is one of only a handful of lawyers in the US with expertise in both international custody proceedings and the specific Hague Convention provisions Sophie's filing references. He was chosen very carefully for this case. Kelly Power (his co-counsel) is also incredibly well respected in this area. They are big guns in this arena and the fact that they are based in DC/Baltimore is probably not considered remotely relevant. She went with an expert in the exact legal provisions relevant to her case. Smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like she’s got some local attorneys handling this for her. Any opinions on why they are DC based and not NY?

Miles Stockbridge family law unit seems to focus on cross border issues.

https://www.mslaw.com/family-law-private-clients

It wouldn’t surprise me if Joe Jonas had conflicted-out many of the the best family law firms in NYC and Miami. She may have needed to look in another market like DC.

[Anonymous]

How does this impact her filming schedule? Is she done? I can’t imagine having to go back to work in another country without my children, especially after a long absence. I wonder what the production company will do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per TMZ, Joe said the judge ruled that the kids have to stay in the US for the time being.

It's not a recent ruling though, and predates Sophie's filing. It's based exclusively on Joe's divorce filing and simply states that neither parent may remove the child from the country. It is likely part of the boilerplate order that the judge would issue in any divorce case involving children, in the same way that a judge would tell a defendant in a bail proceeding that they may not leave the country.

Joe is trying to make it sound like Sophie tried to take them out of the country and a judge said no. That's not what happened.

There is a very serious difference in their stories regarding what occurred in the last three months. Sophie claims Joe took the kids out of the UK without her permission. That's a very serious allegation and while it might not be the whole story, I question whether she would make that allegation without some proof. It's a big deal and the kind of thing that can lose a parent custody altogether.

Joe claims that Sophie was aware of what was happening and that he had the kids per a mutual agreement. Directly contradictory.

They are also contradicting each other on how the divorce came about, with Joe saying it unfolded over a longer period and was a surprise to neither of them, and Sophie saying she didn't know he'd even filed until it came out in the press and that he was making decisions about the kids without her. There are clear reasons why each of these stories benefit their respective cases -- if it was a surprise, Sophie's allegation that the kids and Joe were living in the UK with her makes more sense, but if the marriage had been falling apart for a while, Joes's story that they merely visited Sophie for a bit before returning to the US is more plausible.

I tend to think Sophie has more evidence in her favor because of the decision to sell the Miami house and the choice to acquire a home (albeit a rental) in the UK, plus if it's true her daughter was enrolled in nursery school in the UK, this backs her version of events. I also think Joe might have shot himself in the foot here because right after he filed, he (or someone close to him) leaked news that the decision to file for divorce was made somewhat suddenly after he saw something on a home security camera. I guess it depends what he saw, but this contradicts his own story that the marriage had been in decline for a time and that Sophie knew he was filing.

They might have had an agreement to live in one country for a few years and then England for another few years. Who knows if they had really talked about settling in one place forever.

It’s also irrelevant since the marriage dissolved before they could establish a residence in the UK anyway. From a legal standpoint intent means very little. They have no established residence in the UK and seems unlikely that Sophie can just move them there. I really wonder what a judge is going to rule.

The have more of an established residence in the UK than Florida, where neither of them lives currently or owns any property.

The case is going to be moved to SDNY, no question. The bigger issue will be what deference that court gives international and UK law, as well as any decisions by UK courts on the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like she’s got some local attorneys handling this for her. Any opinions on why they are DC based and not NY?

Miles Stockbridge family law unit seems to focus on cross border issues.

https://www.mslaw.com/family-law-private-clients

It wouldn’t surprise me if Joe Jonas had conflicted-out many of the the best family law firms in NYC and Miami. She may have needed to look in another market like DC.

Nah, she basically couldn't have done better than Cullen. He'd be on a shortlist for something like this regardless, I don't think this is a situation where Jonas conflicted out other attorneys. Jonas is repped by the same lawyers who repped Gisele -- I'm guessing when he decided to file he moved fairly quickly to secure counsel in Florida and went with one of the first people he talked to, because of the urgency of his filing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per TMZ, Joe said the judge ruled that the kids have to stay in the US for the time being.

It's not a recent ruling though, and predates Sophie's filing. It's based exclusively on Joe's divorce filing and simply states that neither parent may remove the child from the country. It is likely part of the boilerplate order that the judge would issue in any divorce case involving children, in the same way that a judge would tell a defendant in a bail proceeding that they may not leave the country.

Joe is trying to make it sound like Sophie tried to take them out of the country and a judge said no. That's not what happened.

There is a very serious difference in their stories regarding what occurred in the last three months. Sophie claims Joe took the kids out of the UK without her permission. That's a very serious allegation and while it might not be the whole story, I question whether she would make that allegation without some proof. It's a big deal and the kind of thing that can lose a parent custody altogether.

Joe claims that Sophie was aware of what was happening and that he had the kids per a mutual agreement. Directly contradictory.

They are also contradicting each other on how the divorce came about, with Joe saying it unfolded over a longer period and was a surprise to neither of them, and Sophie saying she didn't know he'd even filed until it came out in the press and that he was making decisions about the kids without her. There are clear reasons why each of these stories benefit their respective cases -- if it was a surprise, Sophie's allegation that the kids and Joe were living in the UK with her makes more sense, but if the marriage had been falling apart for a while, Joes's story that they merely visited Sophie for a bit before returning to the US is more plausible.

I tend to think Sophie has more evidence in her favor because of the decision to sell the Miami house and the choice to acquire a home (albeit a rental) in the UK, plus if it's true her daughter was enrolled in nursery school in the UK, this backs her version of events. I also think Joe might have shot himself in the foot here because right after he filed, he (or someone close to him) leaked news that the decision to file for divorce was made somewhat suddenly after he saw something on a home security camera. I guess it depends what he saw, but this contradicts his own story that the marriage had been in decline for a time and that Sophie knew he was filing.

They might have had an agreement to live in one country for a few years and then England for another few years. Who knows if they had really talked about settling in one place forever.

It’s also irrelevant since the marriage dissolved before they could establish a residence in the UK anyway. From a legal standpoint intent means very little. They have no established residence in the UK and seems unlikely that Sophie can just move them there. I really wonder what a judge is going to rule.

The have more of an established residence in the UK than Florida, where neither of them lives currently or owns any property.

The case is going to be moved to SDNY, no question. The bigger issue will be what deference that court gives international and UK law, as well as any decisions by UK courts on the matter.

Isn’t there a pretty well established Hague Convention which is binding on US courts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per TMZ, Joe said the judge ruled that the kids have to stay in the US for the time being.

Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction though

She filed in SDNY federal court. Gonna trump Florida state court.

Not to make light, but that escalated quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per TMZ, Joe said the judge ruled that the kids have to stay in the US for the time being.

It's not a recent ruling though, and predates Sophie's filing. It's based exclusively on Joe's divorce filing and simply states that neither parent may remove the child from the country. It is likely part of the boilerplate order that the judge would issue in any divorce case involving children, in the same way that a judge would tell a defendant in a bail proceeding that they may not leave the country.

Joe is trying to make it sound like Sophie tried to take them out of the country and a judge said no. That's not what happened.

There is a very serious difference in their stories regarding what occurred in the last three months. Sophie claims Joe took the kids out of the UK without her permission. That's a very serious allegation and while it might not be the whole story, I question whether she would make that allegation without some proof. It's a big deal and the kind of thing that can lose a parent custody altogether.

Joe claims that Sophie was aware of what was happening and that he had the kids per a mutual agreement. Directly contradictory.

They are also contradicting each other on how the divorce came about, with Joe saying it unfolded over a longer period and was a surprise to neither of them, and Sophie saying she didn't know he'd even filed until it came out in the press and that he was making decisions about the kids without her. There are clear reasons why each of these stories benefit their respective cases -- if it was a surprise, Sophie's allegation that the kids and Joe were living in the UK with her makes more sense, but if the marriage had been falling apart for a while, Joes's story that they merely visited Sophie for a bit before returning to the US is more plausible.

I tend to think Sophie has more evidence in her favor because of the decision to sell the Miami house and the choice to acquire a home (albeit a rental) in the UK, plus if it's true her daughter was enrolled in nursery school in the UK, this backs her version of events. I also think Joe might have shot himself in the foot here because right after he filed, he (or someone close to him) leaked news that the decision to file for divorce was made somewhat suddenly after he saw something on a home security camera. I guess it depends what he saw, but this contradicts his own story that the marriage had been in decline for a time and that Sophie knew he was filing.

They might have had an agreement to live in one country for a few years and then England for another few years. Who knows if they had really talked about settling in one place forever.

It’s also irrelevant since the marriage dissolved before they could establish a residence in the UK anyway. From a legal standpoint intent means very little. They have no established residence in the UK and seems unlikely that Sophie can just move them there. I really wonder what a judge is going to rule.

I think it would be irrelevant if they had a clearly established residence elsewhere, but they don't. Next best thing will be intent.

[Anonymous]

This article sums up the complexity of the case well

https://people.com/a-legal-expert-weighs-in-on-joe-jonas-and-sophie-turner-s-custody-battle-7973043

[Anonymous]

I worked on a Hague convention case once. It’s pretty interesting stuff.

Can we also conclude that she was basically blindsided by this? They are shopping for a forever home, make an offer in July, appear to have some right in august and them bam he’s filing for divorce? That sort of sounds like an affair to me—what else makes someone do that quick a 180? (Other than “actually, I’m gay.”).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I worked on a Hague convention case once. It’s pretty interesting stuff.

Can we also conclude that she was basically blindsided by this? They are shopping for a forever home, make an offer in July, appear to have some right in august and them bam he’s filing for divorce? That sort of sounds like an affair to me—what else makes someone do that quick a 180? (Other than “actually, I’m gay.”).

Possibly an affair. Or she was secretly considering/planning to file for divorce but had them move to the UK intending to establish residency there first.

[Anonymous]

One question for me that we'll probably never get answered is why they ever bought that house in Miami in the first place. I'm guessing it was some kind of tax situation, but then it's weird they lived there so little time and sold it so fast. It's a weird complicating factor in the case but there's no clear reason why. The whole thing would make more sense and be WAY more straightforward if the'd just been living in LA until the alleged move to the UK. Or even splitting time between LA and NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it will be another Kelly Rutherford situation where the adults act like petulant children and fight to the death by tearing each other down in very public ways instead of acting like good parents and putting aside their failed marriage while focusing on what’s best for their kids.

Since those two don’t know how to adult let alone parent, let’s help point them in the right direction.

“Guys, you need to sit down with a mediator and commit to developing a coparenting plan. You need to keep your private family life private. You need to put your kids first and recognize they need to see two loving parents regularly. If you need help, google Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin. They made it look easy.”

What happened to Kelly was horrible and her ex is a disgusting malignant narcissist, to put it lightly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it will be another Kelly Rutherford situation where the adults act like petulant children and fight to the death by tearing each other down in very public ways instead of acting like good parents and putting aside their failed marriage while focusing on what’s best for their kids.

Since those two don’t know how to adult let alone parent, let’s help point them in the right direction.

“Guys, you need to sit down with a mediator and commit to developing a coparenting plan. You need to keep your private family life private. You need to put your kids first and recognize they need to see two loving parents regularly. If you need help, google Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin. They made it look easy.”

What happened to Kelly was horrible and her ex is a disgusting malignant narcissist, to put it lightly.

So then it sounds like Sophie is screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per TMZ, Joe said the judge ruled that the kids have to stay in the US for the time being.

It's not a recent ruling though, and predates Sophie's filing. It's based exclusively on Joe's divorce filing and simply states that neither parent may remove the child from the country. It is likely part of the boilerplate order that the judge would issue in any divorce case involving children, in the same way that a judge would tell a defendant in a bail proceeding that they may not leave the country.

Joe is trying to make it sound like Sophie tried to take them out of the country and a judge said no. That's not what happened.

There is a very serious difference in their stories regarding what occurred in the last three months. Sophie claims Joe took the kids out of the UK without her permission. That's a very serious allegation and while it might not be the whole story, I question whether she would make that allegation without some proof. It's a big deal and the kind of thing that can lose a parent custody altogether.

Joe claims that Sophie was aware of what was happening and that he had the kids per a mutual agreement. Directly contradictory.

They are also contradicting each other on how the divorce came about, with Joe saying it unfolded over a longer period and was a surprise to neither of them, and Sophie saying she didn't know he'd even filed until it came out in the press and that he was making decisions about the kids without her. There are clear reasons why each of these stories benefit their respective cases -- if it was a surprise, Sophie's allegation that the kids and Joe were living in the UK with her makes more sense, but if the marriage had been falling apart for a while, Joes's story that they merely visited Sophie for a bit before returning to the US is more plausible.

I tend to think Sophie has more evidence in her favor because of the decision to sell the Miami house and the choice to acquire a home (albeit a rental) in the UK, plus if it's true her daughter was enrolled in nursery school in the UK, this backs her version of events. I also think Joe might have shot himself in the foot here because right after he filed, he (or someone close to him) leaked news that the decision to file for divorce was made somewhat suddenly after he saw something on a home security camera. I guess it depends what he saw, but this contradicts his own story that the marriage had been in decline for a time and that Sophie knew he was filing.

They might have had an agreement to live in one country for a few years and then England for another few years. Who knows if they had really talked about settling in one place forever.

It’s also irrelevant since the marriage dissolved before they could establish a residence in the UK anyway. From a legal standpoint intent means very little. They have no established residence in the UK and seems unlikely that Sophie can just move them there. I really wonder what a judge is going to rule.

I think it would be irrelevant if they had a clearly established residence elsewhere, but they don't. Next best thing will be intent.

Agreed. It’s not like Jonas has some compelling argument their residence is somewhere else.