Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

[Anonymous]

Just some context:https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a39892076/sophie-turner-june-cover-star/

In May 2022, Sophie very openly said she wanted to move back to the UK, that she was "slowly dragging" Joe there, and that in particular, she wanted her children to be educated there in a similar way to the education Sophie received (she attended private day schools in Warwickshire where her parents still live). She also said that "for her mental health" it would be better for her to be in the UK closer to friends and family. This was a month before her second daughter was born. If this is what she was saying to a magazine, I can only imagine what the conversation was like with Joe.

So yeah, when they sold the Miami house and relocated to the UK in April, Sophie clearly viewed it as a permanent shift of their primary home to the UK. So this is something they have had A LOT of time to discuss and hash out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just some context:https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a39892076/sophie-turner-june-cover-star/

In May 2022, Sophie very openly said she wanted to move back to the UK, that she was "slowly dragging" Joe there, and that in particular, she wanted her children to be educated there in a similar way to the education Sophie received (she attended private day schools in Warwickshire where her parents still live). She also said that "for her mental health" it would be better for her to be in the UK closer to friends and family. This was a month before her second daughter was born. If this is what she was saying to a magazine, I can only imagine what the conversation was like with Joe.

So yeah, when they sold the Miami house and relocated to the UK in April, Sophie clearly viewed it as a permanent shift of their primary home to the UK. So this is something they have had A LOT of time to discuss and hash out.

Corrected link:

https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a39892076/sophie-turner-june-cover-star/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s possible that once Joe spent the 2 months close to her parents, he didn’t want that life. If my husband was from a different country, I would not move to that country and definitely wouldn’t move close to his parents and I have a great relationship with my in-laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s possible that once Joe spent the 2 months close to her parents, he didn’t want that life. If my husband was from a different country, I would not move to that country and definitely wouldn’t move close to his parents and I have a great relationship with my in-laws.

I am not that into my in-laws, but after we had a kid, I was the one suggesting we move closer to them because when you have young kids, having family nearby is invaluable. I'm not even talking about the free babysitting. I'm talking about your children having more people in their lives who love them. And giving them a connection not just to grandparents but aunts and uncles and cousins. Even though my ILs are sometimes difficult, when you have kids, your perspective on family shifts and I found myself more willing to make sacrifices in order to give your kids the best possible start in life. And I don't even have millions of dollars and the opportunity to travel whenever I want at my disposal.

I mean, people can make their own choices. But it's actually pretty normal for people to want to live closer to family after they have kids, even if it isn't their own family.

[Anonymous]

So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s possible that once Joe spent the 2 months close to her parents, he didn’t want that life. If my husband was from a different country, I would not move to that country and definitely wouldn’t move close to his parents and I have a great relationship with my in-laws.

I am not that into my in-laws, but after we had a kid, I was the one suggesting we move closer to them because when you have young kids, having family nearby is invaluable. I'm not even talking about the free babysitting. I'm talking about your children having more people in their lives who love them. And giving them a connection not just to grandparents but aunts and uncles and cousins. Even though my ILs are sometimes difficult, when you have kids, your perspective on family shifts and I found myself more willing to make sacrifices in order to give your kids the best possible start in life. And I don't even have millions of dollars and the opportunity to travel whenever I want at my disposal.

I mean, people can make their own choices. But it's actually pretty normal for people to want to live closer to family after they have kids, even if it isn't their own family.

And he's a touring musician. It's not like he'd have to be down the street from them doing Sunday dinners full time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s possible that once Joe spent the 2 months close to her parents, he didn’t want that life. If my husband was from a different country, I would not move to that country and definitely wouldn’t move close to his parents and I have a great relationship with my in-laws.

I am not that into my in-laws, but after we had a kid, I was the one suggesting we move closer to them because when you have young kids, having family nearby is invaluable. I'm not even talking about the free babysitting. I'm talking about your children having more people in their lives who love them. And giving them a connection not just to grandparents but aunts and uncles and cousins. Even though my ILs are sometimes difficult, when you have kids, your perspective on family shifts and I found myself more willing to make sacrifices in order to give your kids the best possible start in life. And I don't even have millions of dollars and the opportunity to travel whenever I want at my disposal.

I mean, people can make their own choices. But it's actually pretty normal for people to want to live closer to family after they have kids, even if it isn't their own family.

And he's a touring musician. It's not like he'd have to be down the street from them doing Sunday dinners full time.

I mean, even if he weren't touring, they are wealthy and can afford childcare, so unless her family is nuts, it would be so easy for them to get a little space when they need to.

If the conflict was that Warwickshire is more remote than, say, London, in terms of having an international lifestyle, then maybe they should have tried to compromise and move to London or at least closer. But the idea that it's totally unreasonable to expect a performer with millions of dollars to be willing to live in the UK with his British-born spouse... I mean, what did you think he was signing up for when he married her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s possible that once Joe spent the 2 months close to her parents, he didn’t want that life. If my husband was from a different country, I would not move to that country and definitely wouldn’t move close to his parents and I have a great relationship with my in-laws.

I am not that into my in-laws, but after we had a kid, I was the one suggesting we move closer to them because when you have young kids, having family nearby is invaluable. I'm not even talking about the free babysitting. I'm talking about your children having more people in their lives who love them. And giving them a connection not just to grandparents but aunts and uncles and cousins. Even though my ILs are sometimes difficult, when you have kids, your perspective on family shifts and I found myself more willing to make sacrifices in order to give your kids the best possible start in life. And I don't even have millions of dollars and the opportunity to travel whenever I want at my disposal.

I mean, people can make their own choices. But it's actually pretty normal for people to want to live closer to family after they have kids, even if it isn't their own family.

And he's a touring musician. It's not like he'd have to be down the street from them doing Sunday dinners full time.

I mean, even if he weren't touring, they are wealthy and can afford childcare, so unless her family is nuts, it would be so easy for them to get a little space when they need to.

If the conflict was that Warwickshire is more remote than, say, London, in terms of having an international lifestyle, then maybe they should have tried to compromise and move to London or at least closer. But the idea that it's totally unreasonable to expect a performer with millions of dollars to be willing to live in the UK with his British-born spouse... I mean, what did you think he was signing up for when he married her?

The same argument can be made against her though. Couples need to be on the same page about where they’re living and raising their kids, ideally before they get married and have them. For a more relatable example, someone marrying a doctor would need to be okay with moving wherever their spouse places for residency etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

You only need that to establish Florida residency. After that occurs the state doesn't really keep track so long as you have an address to send your mail. Most of the ultra wealthy are nomadic and thus won't trigger residency anywhere else because (1) they are traveling for work so much or (2) primarily follow the seasonal events (Xmas/NYE with extended family in Carribbean, winter at your ski condo, spring in Cannes or Italy, summer in the Hamptons/Northeast and Europe, etc.)

If Joe was planning to live overseas, then he would ABSOLUTELY want to establish Florida tax residency in order to not owe state taxes while abroad. NY, CA, even DC will say you owe state taxes even while living abroad full time if that's where you resided prior to moving out of the U.S. In fact, establishing bona fide Florida residency will likely be argued by Sophie's lawyers that it was part of a longer term plan to eventually move abroad in order to minimize his taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

[Anonymous]

I am oddly fascinated by this situation and find myself following closely.

It’s weird to think that a few weeks ago I vaguely knew the Jonas brothers were a boy band and recognized Sophie Turner from GOT. I did not follow them closely at all, and yet the way he tried to use the “bad mom” playbook felt so sleazy that now I’m really invested.

What a terrible PR fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like both parties have agreed to keep the kids in NY for now and documentation to that effect has been filed in federal court. Nice to see some compromise and talks happening.

Really trashes the Florida having jurisdiction argument though.

I agree with the PP who think the Florida thing (both them buying and then almost immediately selling a house there, and Joe filing there) reflects some shady tax stuff Joe is trying to pull off. It is just nonsensical that they divorce there. The haven't lived there in 5 months and they barely lived there when they "lived" there.

They definitely lived there for tax reasons during the couple of years when the Jonas brothers got back together and he started earning money again.

That said, florida jurisdiction is no less random than New York. To have florida residency you have to live there just over six months of the year. So although they don’t seem to have lived anywhere with any permanency lately, florida is probably the most recent place that they’ve lived from the legal definition of residency.

Their lifestyle is an interesting glimpse into the life of the nomadic wealthy and famous. Sounds kind of sucky, tbh.

*other than the UK, which is where their current home is located.

Right but they only lived lived there for two months or so before separating. In a rental much like everywhere else they’ve been. Would have a very hard time proving any intent of permanence based off that that.

They jointly purchased a home in the UK