Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

[Anonymous]

Increasingly Joe's decision to file in Florida looks bad to me. They no longer lived there and hadn't for at least 4 and a half months (when they went to the UK and listed the Miami house). Why would their divorce take place there? Yes these are rich people who can jet around easily, but who wants to have to go to Florida for hearings or hire a lawyer barred in Florida (or hire a lawyer barred elsewhere and then they have to go through the hoops of getting local counsel or permission to appear themselves).

If a core conflict in the marriage is whether or not they were moving to the UK, it also looks like it's purposeful to make it harder for Sophie if she's based in the UK now. It's also nonsensical that a judge in Florida would determine custody of two people who don't live there.

My sense is that he filed there because it's the most recent place he lived in the US, but maybe that speaks to how rash the decision was. If he didn't want to move to London, he and Sophie could have talked it out, he could have gotten an apartment in NYC and they could have done a trial separation, and then file in NY or London when they were ready, preferably after they'd already basically worked out the custody issues themselves.

He filed rashly and likely did it to hurt Sophie. It was childish and has caused a mess where there needn't have been one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly Joe's decision to file in Florida looks bad to me. They no longer lived there and hadn't for at least 4 and a half months (when they went to the UK and listed the Miami house). Why would their divorce take place there? Yes these are rich people who can jet around easily, but who wants to have to go to Florida for hearings or hire a lawyer barred in Florida (or hire a lawyer barred elsewhere and then they have to go through the hoops of getting local counsel or permission to appear themselves).

If a core conflict in the marriage is whether or not they were moving to the UK, it also looks like it's purposeful to make it harder for Sophie if she's based in the UK now. It's also nonsensical that a judge in Florida would determine custody of two people who don't live there.

My sense is that he filed there because it's the most recent place he lived in the US, but maybe that speaks to how rash the decision was. If he didn't want to move to London, he and Sophie could have talked it out, he could have gotten an apartment in NYC and they could have done a trial separation, and then file in NY or London when they were ready, preferably after they'd already basically worked out the custody issues themselves.

He filed rashly and likely did it to hurt Sophie. It was childish and has caused a mess where there needn't have been one.

There is zero evidence currently that a core conflict in the marriage was the move to Englamd. Or that it was a conflict at all. We don't know. They werent' moving to London anyways. They were moving to a place near her parents which is in Warwickshire.

His team must have had some legal basis for filing in Florida. If it isn't the right jurisdiction, the judge will quickly throw it out.

He likely needed to get something legal in place related to temporary custody before the kids were taken out of the country by Sophie otherwise it might have been a really hard fight to get them back at all. Maybe Sophie had said something about keeping the kids in England or holding their passports or something that made him feel he needed legal backup related to custody. I think most would tell a woman to not let her husband leave the country with the kids when they are going through a separation without something legal in place. That doesn't seem that far fetched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d love to know what the other brothers wives think. Especially Priyanka.

She grew up in a stable, educated, wealthy, loving family with eastern values. She makes her decisions internationally and thinks long term. She wouldn't approve of their actions.

Not to derail, but the woman who got run out of India for flaunting her affairs with married men?

If its true, you have a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know much about either of these two, I know Joe Jonas as part of the Jonas Brothers. I didn’t know his wife was on GOT (No, didn’t watch it). So I read up a little.

Here’s my impression.

They didn’t seem to publicize their kids, even withheld their names from the public for awhile.

Joe Jonas is pap’d carrying the kids cause Joe’s on tour. Public impression: “What a great dad to take so much care of their kids while mom is off working. She’s not a great mom.” I have no idea why most think so much more of a father taking care oh his kids more than a mother taking care of her kids. IMO, he never looked happy carrying the kids.

This whole story line of him taking care of the kids was all him and his PR team to make Sophie look bad. Pictures were a pap stroll and worked, at least in the beginning. Shame on him and his team.

To balance your analysis I thought you would mention Sophie being pap’d with the kids this week your take on that.

I only saw a picture of her with one kid. I wondered if Joe won’t let her have both kids together. Even with out the passports, she could take them anywhere in US and let him chase her down to see them.

He’s coming out looking ugly in this fight.

Not from my perspective. He comes across as the adult. She has a partying rep and the leaving your kids for so long to work is highly unusual. London is not a bad trip east esp when you are flying first class. This whole lawsuit is to save face. I think he showed restraint even saying he is still open to sharing custody. The kidnapping thing from her is a bad look and frankly people are tired of celebrity drama. She should fire her attorney and hire one that is good with settlements and they can both move on with the co parenting

Are you high?

Joe Jonas comes off as a terrible human in this scenario. The first thing he does after filing for divorce is try to exploit his very young children in a paparazzi shoot to salvage his image. Let that sink in: His first act of solo parenting was a conscious decision to exploit his children. And he couldn’t even pull it off without a nanny? Give me a break. I had no opinion on this divorce until I saw the obviously staged pap shoot with his minor children.

Gross. What a disgusting man.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]Increasingly Joe's decision to file in Florida looks bad to me. They no longer lived there and hadn't for at least 4 and a half months (when they went to the UK and listed the Miami house). Why would their divorce take place there? Yes these are rich people who can jet around easily, but who wants to have to go to Florida for hearings or hire a lawyer barred in Florida (or hire a lawyer barred elsewhere and then they have to go through the hoops of getting local counsel or permission to appear themselves).

If a core conflict in the marriage is whether or not they were moving to the UK, it also looks like it's purposeful to make it harder for Sophie if she's based in the UK now. It's also nonsensical that a judge in Florida would determine custody of two people who don't live there.

My sense is that he filed there because it's the most recent place he lived in the US, but maybe that speaks to how rash the decision was. If he didn't want to move to London, he and Sophie could have talked it out, he could have gotten an apartment in NYC and they could have done a trial separation, and then file in NY or London when they were ready, preferably after they'd already basically worked out the custody issues themselves.

He filed rashly and likely did it to hurt Sophie. It was childish and has caused a mess where there needn't have been one.

I am going to assume how it looks will have no influence on the outcome of the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly Joe's decision to file in Florida looks bad to me. They no longer lived there and hadn't for at least 4 and a half months (when they went to the UK and listed the Miami house). Why would their divorce take place there? Yes these are rich people who can jet around easily, but who wants to have to go to Florida for hearings or hire a lawyer barred in Florida (or hire a lawyer barred elsewhere and then they have to go through the hoops of getting local counsel or permission to appear themselves).

If a core conflict in the marriage is whether or not they were moving to the UK, it also looks like it's purposeful to make it harder for Sophie if she's based in the UK now. It's also nonsensical that a judge in Florida would determine custody of two people who don't live there.

My sense is that he filed there because it's the most recent place he lived in the US, but maybe that speaks to how rash the decision was. If he didn't want to move to London, he and Sophie could have talked it out, he could have gotten an apartment in NYC and they could have done a trial separation, and then file in NY or London when they were ready, preferably after they'd already basically worked out the custody issues themselves.

He filed rashly and likely did it to hurt Sophie. It was childish and has caused a mess where there needn't have been one.

I am going to assume how it looks will have no influence on the outcome of the case.

When celebrities divorce, half of it is protecting their rights and interests in the divorce, and half of it is not destroying their personal brands in the process. Jonas' fan base is mostly women -- he will need to tread somewhat lightly here. Sophie has more leeway, as her work is not as beholden to individual fan opinion -- she's considered a "Serious Actress" and as long as people like her in roles, it matters less if they like her personally. Being British also helps her, as she's highly likely to retain a fan base in the UK who does not care about Joe Jonas in the least and actually probably likes her better for the split.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly Joe's decision to file in Florida looks bad to me. They no longer lived there and hadn't for at least 4 and a half months (when they went to the UK and listed the Miami house). Why would their divorce take place there? Yes these are rich people who can jet around easily, but who wants to have to go to Florida for hearings or hire a lawyer barred in Florida (or hire a lawyer barred elsewhere and then they have to go through the hoops of getting local counsel or permission to appear themselves).

If a core conflict in the marriage is whether or not they were moving to the UK, it also looks like it's purposeful to make it harder for Sophie if she's based in the UK now. It's also nonsensical that a judge in Florida would determine custody of two people who don't live there.

My sense is that he filed there because it's the most recent place he lived in the US, but maybe that speaks to how rash the decision was. If he didn't want to move to London, he and Sophie could have talked it out, he could have gotten an apartment in NYC and they could have done a trial separation, and then file in NY or London when they were ready, preferably after they'd already basically worked out the custody issues themselves.

He filed rashly and likely did it to hurt Sophie. It was childish and has caused a mess where there needn't have been one.

I am going to assume how it looks will have no influence on the outcome of the case.

When celebrities divorce, half of it is protecting their rights and interests in the divorce, and half of it is not destroying their personal brands in the process. Jonas' fan base is mostly women -- he will need to tread somewhat lightly here. Sophie has more leeway, as her work is not as beholden to individual fan opinion -- she's considered a "Serious Actress" and as long as people like her in roles, it matters less if they like her personally. Being British also helps her, as she's highly likely to retain a fan base in the UK who does not care about Joe Jonas in the least and actually probably likes her better for the split.

Legally it doesn't matter what a female fan base thinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly Joe's decision to file in Florida looks bad to me. They no longer lived there and hadn't for at least 4 and a half months (when they went to the UK and listed the Miami house). Why would their divorce take place there? Yes these are rich people who can jet around easily, but who wants to have to go to Florida for hearings or hire a lawyer barred in Florida (or hire a lawyer barred elsewhere and then they have to go through the hoops of getting local counsel or permission to appear themselves).

If a core conflict in the marriage is whether or not they were moving to the UK, it also looks like it's purposeful to make it harder for Sophie if she's based in the UK now. It's also nonsensical that a judge in Florida would determine custody of two people who don't live there.

My sense is that he filed there because it's the most recent place he lived in the US, but maybe that speaks to how rash the decision was. If he didn't want to move to London, he and Sophie could have talked it out, he could have gotten an apartment in NYC and they could have done a trial separation, and then file in NY or London when they were ready, preferably after they'd already basically worked out the custody issues themselves.

He filed rashly and likely did it to hurt Sophie. It was childish and has caused a mess where there needn't have been one.

I am going to assume how it looks will have no influence on the outcome of the case.

When celebrities divorce, half of it is protecting their rights and interests in the divorce, and half of it is not destroying their personal brands in the process. Jonas' fan base is mostly women -- he will need to tread somewhat lightly here. Sophie has more leeway, as her work is not as beholden to individual fan opinion -- she's considered a "Serious Actress" and as long as people like her in roles, it matters less if they like her personally. Being British also helps her, as she's highly likely to retain a fan base in the UK who does not care about Joe Jonas in the least and actually probably likes her better for the split.

Legally it doesn't matter what a female fan base thinks.

Do you often fail to understand that point someone is making? Oh, who am I kidding. That's obviously a rhetorical question.

[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.

It doesn’t sound like Sophie’s parents do much (and of course, JJ’s parents do even less). If they had stepped up to be the primary, continuous caregivers for the children (with help from nannies) they would have either 1) kept the children with them while Joe toured and Sophie worked, or 2) taken the kids along with one of the parents.

Honestly, 1) would have been the better choice for the children. Maintain a stable schedule in a stable home instead of this nomadic lifestyle. It’s not like this situation isn’t going to come up again and again as long as they both continue working. Joe can’t necessarily reschedule tour dates to avoid conflicts with Sophie’s shoots or vice versa. The only way it is tenable is if the grandparents really step up and provide the kids a stable home during those times, at least while they are young (under 10)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It doesn’t sound like Sophie’s parents do much (and of course, JJ’s parents do even less). If they had stepped up to be the primary, continuous caregivers for the children (with help from nannies) they would have either 1) kept the children with them while Joe toured and Sophie worked, or 2) taken the kids along with one of the parents.

Honestly, 1) would have been the better choice for the children. Maintain a stable schedule in a stable home instead of this nomadic lifestyle. It’s not like this situation isn’t going to come up again and again as long as they both continue working. Joe can’t necessarily reschedule tour dates to avoid conflicts with Sophie’s shoots or vice versa. The only way it is tenable is if the grandparents really step up and provide the kids a stable home during those times, at least while they are young (under 10)

We have no idea of the dynamics involved. Given that Joe filed for divorce a month later, maybe he was uncomfortable with the idea of Sophie's parents acting as primary caregivers while he was on tour, because he may have already been thinking in terms of needing to protect his parental rights. Leaving the kids in the UK with her parents in charge would be a very bad look going into a custody battle where he is arguing for the kids to have equal time in the US, given that he likely will continue to tour.

But we have no idea of what their willingness to help is. It does seem that Sophie sees real value in being near them, given the effort she has put into locating near them. As another poster pointed out, she wasn't trying to settle the family in London -- she specifically sought out a home near her family and where she herself grew up. That indicates she probably has a decent relationship with them and a real affection for how she was raised, which tends to lend itself to involved grandparents.

[Anonymous]

How often is he going to tour? They’re the Jonas brothers, not taylor swift.

The parents should each have 50/50 custody. It’s incredibly sad that the two of them didn’t align on where they’d raise their kids were born, and actually establish that life. Sophie is basically attempting to say that if Joe wants to have them 50% of the time, he’ll need to be in England. And their background just doesn’t establish that whatsoever. Her best hope is a judge ruling that it would be in the kids best interest to grow up in England despite their US father being opposed to it. I don’t really see that happening given the circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How often is he going to tour? They’re the Jonas brothers, not taylor swift.

The parents should each have 50/50 custody. It’s incredibly sad that the two of them didn’t align on where they’d raise their kids were born, and actually establish that life. Sophie is basically attempting to say that if Joe wants to have them 50% of the time, he’ll need to be in England. And their background just doesn’t establish that whatsoever. Her best hope is a judge ruling that it would be in the kids best interest to grow up in England despite their US father being opposed to it. I don’t really see that happening given the circumstances.

Where do you get this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How often is he going to tour? They’re the Jonas brothers, not taylor swift.

The parents should each have 50/50 custody. It’s incredibly sad that the two of them didn’t align on where they’d raise their kids were born, and actually establish that life. Sophie is basically attempting to say that if Joe wants to have them 50% of the time, he’ll need to be in England. And their background just doesn’t establish that whatsoever. Her best hope is a judge ruling that it would be in the kids best interest to grow up in England despite their US father being opposed to it. I don’t really see that happening given the circumstances.

Where do you get this?

To expand -- I've read the court documents and she's suing for their immediate return to England but, at least so far, is not suing for full custody. Probably there will be a debate over where they are educated, but that's not in Sophie's filing, and the primary goal of her filing is to allow her to take the kids back to the UK now as she originally intended to do (and to which Joe agree before he filed for divorce, thus barring her from taking them out of the country).

So thus far, the only person forcing the other to stay in a country they don't want to be in, in order to spend time with their children, is Joe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasingly Joe's decision to file in Florida looks bad to me. They no longer lived there and hadn't for at least 4 and a half months (when they went to the UK and listed the Miami house). Why would their divorce take place there? Yes these are rich people who can jet around easily, but who wants to have to go to Florida for hearings or hire a lawyer barred in Florida (or hire a lawyer barred elsewhere and then they have to go through the hoops of getting local counsel or permission to appear themselves).

If a core conflict in the marriage is whether or not they were moving to the UK, it also looks like it's purposeful to make it harder for Sophie if she's based in the UK now. It's also nonsensical that a judge in Florida would determine custody of two people who don't live there.

My sense is that he filed there because it's the most recent place he lived in the US, but maybe that speaks to how rash the decision was. If he didn't want to move to London, he and Sophie could have talked it out, he could have gotten an apartment in NYC and they could have done a trial separation, and then file in NY or London when they were ready, preferably after they'd already basically worked out the custody issues themselves.

He filed rashly and likely did it to hurt Sophie. It was childish and has caused a mess where there needn't have been one.

10 bucks says that Joe Jonas is still a tax resident of Florida. Drivers license, some sort of PO Box address, etc. He’s playing tax games, given that he’s on the road and not in any one state for much time to establish residency elsewhere.

He establishes tax residency before this huge tour that is going to generate $$$$ and is now not paying state taxes. He’s playing games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How often is he going to tour? They’re the Jonas brothers, not taylor swift.

The parents should each have 50/50 custody. It’s incredibly sad that the two of them didn’t align on where they’d raise their kids were born, and actually establish that life. Sophie is basically attempting to say that if Joe wants to have them 50% of the time, he’ll need to be in England. And their background just doesn’t establish that whatsoever. Her best hope is a judge ruling that it would be in the kids best interest to grow up in England despite their US father being opposed to it. I don’t really see that happening given the circumstances.

I know they are famous, successful and wealthy, but I am truly so confused about who their adult fan base is and who is going to the Jonas Brothers concerts.