Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will get custody and live in the UK with them. He'll get visitations. He totally underestimates the power of the mother.

It's like you live in the 1970s. This is no longer the case. Nowadays it's about the power of the dollar. I know two moms who lost custody of their children because their now ex-husbands had much more money and could afford better lawyers (plus could provide that they could afford the best nannies, home, school, etc. for the children).

No, when I was a little kid in the 70s dads were getting full custody.
This is not going to work for him, due to the international stage of it all and the young ages of the babies. Sophie will get them and he will have to be amenable.
Much like Tom Cruise, one of the most powerful men on the planet. Its' a tide change.
Wake up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Accordint to past social media, the Jonas Brothers started rtour rehearsals in the USA for the tour at the end of June / beginning of July so it seems Joe likely brought the kids with him then - which aligns with his having the kids for 3 months statement. The tour started August 12 but lots of social media posts in July about the rehearsals.

According to Sophie's filing, Joe was in England until July 31st, when he left with the kids for his tour. It's possible he went to those rehearsals in June/July, but unless Sophie is flat out lying in her filing (very unlikely), he must have just come out for a few days here and there. Even if he brought the kids with him on some or all of those trips (unlikely given their ages), that's not the same as the kids being in his primary custody away from Sophie for 3 months. Even if she was working, if he was in England with the kids, they would be in their joint custody during that time.

And here is where I note that it's stuff like this that makes me pro-Sophie in this matter because Joe is trying to make it sound like, because Sophie was working for a few months and he spent a month or two as the primary parent during the most intense part of her shoot, he has somehow become the primary parent forever and Sophie has abdicated her responsibilities towards the kids.

This is a woman who literally did not work for 3 years while having these kids, despite working in an industry where giving up 3 years of your late 20s to stay home is worth a LOT of money, and having a career where ordinarily she would have been seeking to capitalize on her GoT exposure more aggressively. The fact that he seems to be using the only job she has take since getting pregnant with their eldest as evidence that she's just not that into being a mom anymore, while he is constantly touring with two different bands, is the sort of think that makes me really angry. That's why you see so many women talking about this case with some passion. The timing of the divorce and the way Joe seems to be treating a woman who gave up an incredibly successful and lucrative career to stay home with babies for three years, is very... triggering.

According to her Imdb page she has been working all along. Not on major movie roles but she has multiple mini series, a movie, a few TV projects etc. It doesn't seem she hasn't worked or had any jobs.

I think people view this and most situations through their own bias. You can decide that the man could only have bad intentions and be a non primary father and view everythign he says and does that that lens and the woman must of course be the nurturing doting primary parent who could only ever have good intentions. For myself, based on my life, I don't have that lens. My good and bad people / parents isn't split along the lines of men (bad) and woman (good). I have no idea what has really happened but I don't assume that since she is the woman and a mother she can do no wrong and since he is a man and father he must be at fault for everything and couldn't possibly have looked after his kids.

DP. None of the things she has done required the time commitment she previously put into her prior roles that brought her to prominence. It could be a coincidence but does appear to be more of a choice. She also hasn’t played any pregnant women to my knowledge so almost certainly wasn’t doing anything at that time.

She was pregnant and had two kids! Nothing wrong with some mat leave and taking smaller projects. I am sure a lot of wealthy people take some time off big projects while birthing children. She was still working some though. They seem to have had a nanny throughout despite her 'not working'. I don't see any evidence that this was some abusive plan of Joe forcing her to quit work and be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

No one is saying he was forcing her to stay pregnant and at home. But I wonder how much the move to the UK was intertwined with Sophie returning to taking larger roles. Even with a lot of money and resources, it is really hard to be a mother of two small children while living so far from your family and then also trying to work. Like I don't think it was a coincidence that she started moving her life much more towards the UK around the same time she took her first really significant role post-kids. I think those things were linked, like she realized that if she wants to really work (not jus little voice over gigs or small roles, but major roles like what she was doing before she got married), she'd need to be in a situation where she had a really strong support system around her and the kids, a strong home base she could always go back to.

And she wasn't getting that in the US. I don't know why, but they stayed in that LA house for really not that long. Then they buy the house in Miami, which definitely seems like a move incentives by taxes but also sounds like crap timing for a family that has one toddler and a baby on the way. And again, I would bet you anything through all of that, Sophie was just feeling kind of homesick, dealing with doctors visits and childbirth and all of it in Miami, where she doesn't even have a lot of friends? I'm sorry that sounds lonely as hell.

So the timing just really stinks because what it looks like is that Sophie was trying to find a way to make motherhood work for her by doing what a lot of women do -- moving closer to family, leaning into a support system, digging back into work but in a supported way that doesn't compromise your kids. And Joe couldn't get on board.

Is making fatherhood work for him also important? They both became parents at the same time. They should have been focusing on making parenthood work for them. Her staying in the US means she is away from her family and support network and him going to the UK means he is away from his family and his support network.

This won't go over well with some people, but when kids are under age 5, I think it is much more important to make sure the mom gets the support she needs, because she's generally doing a lot more heavy lifting in terms parenting. I know these are rich, famous people but I doubt their dynamic is much different. Who hires the nannies? Who arranges play dates and enrolls them in activities? Who makes sure they are eating or deals with sleep regressions or finds a good pediatrician in whatever new city they are living in? Who figures out that one kid is afraid of the dark and needs a special night light or she won't be able to fall asleep without someone in the room, but the other one always needs to be give 10 and 5 mint warnings before literally any change of venue or she will absolutely lose her mind? And so on. Yes, nannies will do some of this. Kids still need parents and in most marriages, the mom does the vast majority of that plus is in charge of hiring the nanny and maintaining that relationship.

Thus, most of the time with little kids, it makes sense to live where the mom has the best support network, because she's doing more. I think that's why you see that Sophie has gone to great lengths to construct a home and lifestyle that will be supportive in that way, while Joe has a touring schedules that takes him into the middle of next year and doesn't even have a home. Dads often do not think about this stuff, they let mom do it. Well mom needs help.

My husband did half of that stuff. Not 50% of every category you described, but 50% of the categories. Like, I dealt with activities and playdates and he dealt with food and bathing and sleep. And he has a much more demanding job than me. It depends on personality. Some men feel like “These are my kids. I brought them into the world and they are my responsibility.” And some men don’t. I don’t know which type JJ is (or Sophie is).

[Anonymous]

Both of them are terrible parents. It is *not* good for babies and toddlers to be constantly jetsetting without a primary caregiver. Couldn’t they beg one of the grandmas to stay with them full time during their busy working periods? That is what the Obamas did. They can still hire a nannies to do the hard stuff but grandma will provide the unconditional familial love and continuity that a nanny cannot.

Leaving grandma aside, did they *really* need to take constant vacations to Italy, Vegas, etc.? At least during their free time they couldn’t stay in their primary home to provide some semblance of stability for their kids? So much whiplash, immobile travel time when they should be active, probably lots of screen time too…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both of them are terrible parents. It is *not* good for babies and toddlers to be constantly jetsetting without a primary caregiver. Couldn’t they beg one of the grandmas to stay with them full time during their busy working periods? That is what the Obamas did. They can still hire a nannies to do the hard stuff but grandma will provide the unconditional familial love and continuity that a nanny cannot.

Leaving grandma aside, did they *really* need to take constant vacations to Italy, Vegas, etc.? At least during their free time they couldn’t stay in their primary home to provide some semblance of stability for their kids? So much whiplash, immobile travel time when they should be active, probably lots of screen time too…

The traveling is what it is, but I don't think it's accurate to say the kids have been "constantly jetsetting without a primary caregiver." The show Sophie just filmed is her first major role since the oldest child was born. She (and Joe, for all I know) slowed way down to care for the kids while they were very young.

Now she's ready to ramp back up and they--wouldn't you know it--did exactly what you suggest: moved to be close to Grandma/Grandpa in England.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both of them are terrible parents. It is *not* good for babies and toddlers to be constantly jetsetting without a primary caregiver. Couldn’t they beg one of the grandmas to stay with them full time during their busy working periods? That is what the Obamas did. They can still hire a nannies to do the hard stuff but grandma will provide the unconditional familial love and continuity that a nanny cannot.

Leaving grandma aside, did they *really* need to take constant vacations to Italy, Vegas, etc.? At least during their free time they couldn’t stay in their primary home to provide some semblance of stability for their kids? So much whiplash, immobile travel time when they should be active, probably lots of screen time too…

The traveling is what it is, but I don't think it's accurate to say the kids have been "constantly jetsetting without a primary caregiver." The show Sophie just filmed is her first major role since the oldest child was born. She (and Joe, for all I know) slowed way down to care for the kids while they were very young.

Now she's ready to ramp back up and they--wouldn't you know it--did exactly what you suggest: moved to be close to Grandma/Grandpa in England.

+1

I wonder what Joe's family is like in terms of support for each other. It seems like that should have been a source of stability for them in the US, but I wonder if that wasn't the case and that's why Sophie wanted to move closer to her family.

[Anonymous]

Grandparents? They have a stability person(s) in their life. It’s called nannie’s.

[Anonymous]

IF her story is true, they we’re moving to England and the divorce was a surprise then Joe is a d**k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will get custody and live in the UK with them. He'll get visitations. He totally underestimates the power of the mother.

It's like you live in the 1970s. This is no longer the case. Nowadays it's about the power of the dollar. I know two moms who lost custody of their children because their now ex-husbands had much more money and could afford better lawyers (plus could provide that they could afford the best nannies, home, school, etc. for the children).

Well that’s sad. I disagree with what she’s doing- trying to move them to the UK when it’s not really clear what their home base was and certainly wasn’t the UK- but I’m not super sympathetic towards him either. They really should be living in the same area for their kids best interests and should settle this out of court.

IMO the kids have spent very little time in England, and just because it was one of the more recent locations doesn’t make it their home. Her trying to argue that it’s their home rubs me the wrong way. It’s *her* home.

That's where her family and support system is though. That's why they were planning to move there in the first place. They both have demanding jobs and what Sophie presents sounds much more stable for the girls than traveling with Joe while he tours.

+1. A one year old and three year old care about seeing parents and caregivers consistently. The three year old isn’t going to be waxing poetic about missing all her July 4th traditions if she is relocated to England.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grandparents? They have a stability person(s) in their life. It’s called nannie’s.

Sometimes a nanny isn't enough, especially if both parents have unpredictable jobs. Many, many celebrity couples have additional help from a family member, often one of the grandmothers, who helps to fill in the gaps between mom and dad and hired help. Especially with multiple kids and parents whose work requires extensive travel, grandma becomes a constant they can count on.

I think a PP mentioned the Obamas bringing Michelle's mom to live with them at the White House. But lots of celebs do similarly, or the pit the grandparents up in a nearby house or apartment.

It sounds like Sophie was trying to create something like that by settling near her parents and getting the girls into schools there. Then if she and Joe ever had overlapping travel or work commitments, the girls could still be in a very stable, familiar routine with family, not just a nanny.

It sounds like Joe's family didn't offer that kind of stabilizing support in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IF her story is true, they we’re moving to England and the divorce was a surprise then Joe is a d**k.

He never said he’s opposed to the kids growing up in both the us and uk. He explicitly said he’s fine with that. But he does want a fair custody arrangement, in the jurisdiction of where they’ve lived until now. That doesn’t make him a jerk. And filing in the US certainly doesn’t make him more of a jerk than say, Sophie filing in England.

I also imagine there’s two sides to the story. Women file for divorce the vast majority of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IF her story is true, they we’re moving to England and the divorce was a surprise then Joe is a d**k.

Why is he a d**k? Clearly something happened that upended the marriage. That happens. Affairs, violence etc. When there is a major issue that blows up a marriage, it often ends suddenly. We don't know exaclty what happened but there was a major life altering fight between them on August 15th. Whatever it was crossed someone's boundary of what is acceptable in a marriage / relationship and they walked away. That is what we tell women to do. Of course it shakes up life plans. That is the reality of a marriage break down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF her story is true, they we’re moving to England and the divorce was a surprise then Joe is a d**k.

Why is he a d**k? Clearly something happened that upended the marriage. That happens. Affairs, violence etc. When there is a major issue that blows up a marriage, it often ends suddenly. We don't know exaclty what happened but there was a major life altering fight between them on August 15th. Whatever it was crossed someone's boundary of what is acceptable in a marriage / relationship and they walked away. That is what we tell women to do. Of course it shakes up life plans. That is the reality of a marriage break down.

Without knowing what happened 8/15 we can't possibly know if that is just pretext for someone who was already unhappy and already wanted out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF her story is true, they we’re moving to England and the divorce was a surprise then Joe is a d**k.

Why is he a d**k? Clearly something happened that upended the marriage. That happens. Affairs, violence etc. When there is a major issue that blows up a marriage, it often ends suddenly. We don't know exaclty what happened but there was a major life altering fight between them on August 15th. Whatever it was crossed someone's boundary of what is acceptable in a marriage / relationship and they walked away. That is what we tell women to do. Of course it shakes up life plans. That is the reality of a marriage break down.

Without knowing what happened 8/15 we can't possibly know if that is just pretext for someone who was already unhappy and already wanted out.

Well sure. That could be the case in any sudden breakup. But given they were buying a home together in July, something happened. Maybe he got with his brothers and they made him realize he was in an unhealthy, toxic or abusive relationship - I don't know. We could speculate until the cows come home. Right now all we know is something happened that ended things abruptly. The tabloids referenced something he saw on Ring cameria. It was also his birthday. Something went down that led to an almost immediate divorce filing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF her story is true, they we’re moving to England and the divorce was a surprise then Joe is a d**k.

He never said he’s opposed to the kids growing up in both the us and uk. He explicitly said he’s fine with that. But he does want a fair custody arrangement, in the jurisdiction of where they’ve lived until now. That doesn’t make him a jerk. And filing in the US certainly doesn’t make him more of a jerk than say, Sophie filing in England.

I also imagine there’s two sides to the story. Women file for divorce the vast majority of the time.

No, what the PP is saying is that if they family had made a plan to move to the UK, where Sophie is from and her family is, and then Joe decided to get divorced because he didn't want to move to the UK, AND his decision to file was a surprise, he's a d!ck.

It's understandable if he decided he couldn't do the move -- a lot of people would struggle with that. And it's okay to get divorced if it turns out you and your spouse can't agree on what country to live in. That's pretty much the definition of irreconcilable differences.

But if that's what's actually happening here, and Joe decided to file suddenly and with no warning while he was in the US with the kids and Sophie wasn't there, he's a d!ck for not just being a grown up, talking it through with her, and filing together or with warning so that they could have a plan in place with regards to custody, since they have to figure the it out over two countries.

If true, the choice to surprise file for divorce while he had custody of the kids, while in the country Sophie does not consider herself to live in anymore, is a jerk move because now it's a big mess as to whether or when she can go back to the UK and what happens with the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF her story is true, they we’re moving to England and the divorce was a surprise then Joe is a d**k.

He never said he’s opposed to the kids growing up in both the us and uk. He explicitly said he’s fine with that. But he does want a fair custody arrangement, in the jurisdiction of where they’ve lived until now. That doesn’t make him a jerk. And filing in the US certainly doesn’t make him more of a jerk than say, Sophie filing in England.

I also imagine there’s two sides to the story. Women file for divorce the vast majority of the time.

No, what the PP is saying is that if they family had made a plan to move to the UK, where Sophie is from and her family is, and then Joe decided to get divorced because he didn't want to move to the UK, AND his decision to file was a surprise, he's a d!ck.

It's understandable if he decided he couldn't do the move -- a lot of people would struggle with that. And it's okay to get divorced if it turns out you and your spouse can't agree on what country to live in. That's pretty much the definition of irreconcilable differences.

But if that's what's actually happening here, and Joe decided to file suddenly and with no warning while he was in the US with the kids and Sophie wasn't there, he's a d!ck for not just being a grown up, talking it through with her, and filing together or with warning so that they could have a plan in place with regards to custody, since they have to figure the it out over two countries.

If true, the choice to surprise file for divorce while he had custody of the kids, while in the country Sophie does not consider herself to live in anymore, is a jerk move because now it's a big mess as to whether or when she can go back to the UK and what happens with the kids.

But nothing from either camp has alluded to that being the reason. Nothing has been released that the driving factor for the divorce was related to him not wanting to live in the UK. Both filings mentioned the fight on August 15th. People could also just outright make up stuff about Sophie and then call her a b**ch but why?