Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

Of course it matters.

If it can be proven that none of them were residents of Florida at the time of filing, then Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case is thrown out.

That’s the part you don’t get.

Jonas is the one who needs to prove that they were residents of Florida to keep the case there. That’s going to be really difficult.

I don’t know- they don’t meet the criteria for UK to have jurisdiction either. Ironically both fl and the UK residency minimum is living there for six months prior to divorce. England seems like 6-12 months prior actually. The most recent place they were six month residents of anywhere was florida and that might be what they need to go off of. I bet that’s why his lawyers advised him to file there.

What are the UK criteria you're referencing? My google results for "habitually resident" under the Hague Convention at issue and UK law suggest it is all pretty loosey-goosey and I saw cases where a child's habitual residence was held to have been in places where they had been for only a few months (even when the parents had previously agreed the stay would be temporary). There does seem to be some question as to whether they will meet the criteria for UK jurisdiction, but (again just based on googling, so I could be off base) it doesn't seem clear that they flat out "don't meet the criteria."

[Anonymous]

It looks like there's a hearing tomorrow morning on Sophie's motion to stay the Florida case, so it will be interesting to see what comes out of that. Just wish it were in the federal court where info is much easier to access!

[Anonymous]

Big article in US Weekly: https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/why-joe-jonas-and-sophie-turners-divorce-turned-so-nasty/.

An unidentified source says the ring camera footage was just of Sophie "saying some not-so-nice things about Jonas to a pal."

[Anonymous]

According to TMZ, sounds like the Florida court will grant Sophie's request for a stay:

"The Miami judge said in court Wednesday, he will abide by the federal judge's ruling. He will get the case if the federal judge says the U.S. is the appropriate venue, and if the judge decides otherwise a UK judge will take the reins."

https://www.tmz.com/2023/09/27/joe-jonas-sophie-turner-wants-uk-judge-handle-divorce/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

Of course it matters.

If it can be proven that none of them were residents of Florida at the time of filing, then Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case is thrown out.

That’s the part you don’t get.

Jonas is the one who needs to prove that they were residents of Florida to keep the case there. That’s going to be really difficult.

I don’t know- they don’t meet the criteria for UK to have jurisdiction either. Ironically both fl and the UK residency minimum is living there for six months prior to divorce. England seems like 6-12 months prior actually. The most recent place they were six month residents of anywhere was florida and that might be what they need to go off of. I bet that’s why his lawyers advised him to file there.

You’re still missing the point.

The Florida court is not deciding where they need to file. Florida is simply deciding if the state of Florida has jurisdiction. If they weren’t residents at the time of filling, the case is thrown out.

Then it will be a race to see who files first in their most favorable jurisdiction. Sophie can immediately file in the UK or NY or wherever and those courts will decide if they have jurisdiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

Of course it matters.

If it can be proven that none of them were residents of Florida at the time of filing, then Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case is thrown out.

That’s the part you don’t get.

Jonas is the one who needs to prove that they were residents of Florida to keep the case there. That’s going to be really difficult.

I don’t know- they don’t meet the criteria for UK to have jurisdiction either. Ironically both fl and the UK residency minimum is living there for six months prior to divorce. England seems like 6-12 months prior actually. The most recent place they were six month residents of anywhere was florida and that might be what they need to go off of. I bet that’s why his lawyers advised him to file there.

You’re still missing the point.

The Florida court is not deciding where they need to file. Florida is simply deciding if the state of Florida has jurisdiction. If they weren’t residents at the time of filling, the case is thrown out.

Then it will be a race to see who files first in their most favorable jurisdiction. Sophie can immediately file in the UK or NY or wherever and those courts will decide if they have jurisdiction.

And he can immediately file in NY too. Or if she files in NY that’s fine for him too. What he’s trying to prevent is her filing in the UK and in the meantime, living there and establishing their kids lives there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

But they didn’t close. And they also jointly purchased a home in florida and didn’t really “live” there. So purchasing a home for people like them means very little in terms of spending any meaningful amount of time there.

Yes, and **they sold** the jointly purchased home in Florida because they had definitively decided not to live there.

But none of this really matters. They “moved” there late April. Joe left over the summer. Had the kids by late July and they haven’t been back since. They weren’t in England long enough for it to matter legally. Then he filed for divorce well before the six month mark. I don’t think they were even there for three months.

House purchase only matters so much with people like them. They buy homes all the time and don’t live there for much of the time. And they hadn’t closed before they separated. Really not much for Sophie to go off of here. I’m not invested in either of them- just don’t see her case. Complicated at best.

Of course it matters.

If it can be proven that none of them were residents of Florida at the time of filing, then Florida doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case is thrown out.

That’s the part you don’t get.

Jonas is the one who needs to prove that they were residents of Florida to keep the case there. That’s going to be really difficult.

I don’t know- they don’t meet the criteria for UK to have jurisdiction either. Ironically both fl and the UK residency minimum is living there for six months prior to divorce. England seems like 6-12 months prior actually. The most recent place they were six month residents of anywhere was florida and that might be what they need to go off of. I bet that’s why his lawyers advised him to file there.

You’re still missing the point.

The Florida court is not deciding where they need to file. Florida is simply deciding if the state of Florida has jurisdiction. If they weren’t residents at the time of filling, the case is thrown out.

Then it will be a race to see who files first in their most favorable jurisdiction. Sophie can immediately file in the UK or NY or wherever and those courts will decide if they have jurisdiction.

Also based on the hearing today in FL, it sounds like the Miami judge *will* get the case if the federal judge in NY decides that the US is the appropriate venue. So florida is not deciding who has jurisdiction. The federal court in NY is. And it won’t be a race for who files after that. It will either be handled in FL or Sophie will be able to file in the UK.

[Anonymous]

There was speculation about what Joe heard on the Ring camera. An insider said he heard Sophia trashing him, and that was the final straw.

[Anonymous]

I’m not a fan of either one of these people, but as a parent hearing about Jonas’ solution to parenting, he does NOT get it. Hauling a preschooler and toddler around on tour?? How often are they sleeping in different places every night? Three times a week? Who would ever think that is a good, stable environment for young children? That sounds like narcissistic parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a fan of either one of these people, but as a parent hearing about Jonas’ solution to parenting, he does NOT get it. Hauling a preschooler and toddler around on tour?? How often are they sleeping in different places every night? Three times a week? Who would ever think that is a good, stable environment for young children? That sounds like narcissistic parenting.

+1. I wrote above, if the grandparents were truly involved in the kids’ lives, they would have kept them during the period when both Sophie and Joe were busy. And hopefully Sophie and Joe would work to minimize those periods in the future.

[Anonymous]

She is young and wild and he is older and stable. The kids need both parents but her drama with international kipnapping charge is not rational or helpful. I think the kids should be back and forth to US and England but primary place US because this is where they were born and the parents were married and UK is just an easy place for mom now that she has bored of being married. She should have considered this before she married a US citizen and solely lived here for years.

[Anonymous]

This is entirely speculative, but I wonder if there are tensions between them on the privacy of the children. They've both talked about the importance of privacy, but I've always had the feeling that the level of privacy was really driven by Sophie. Certainly Joe and Sophie's children are kept more private than the children of Kevin and Nick, and I wonder if Joe wouldn't prefer to loosen the reins a bit. The choice of home in England certainly suggests priority being given to allowing the girls to grow up in a more "normal" and private way. But even if they are on the same page about wanting privacy in theory, anyone can tell that the girls' privacy will be easier to protect in England, and that is likely at least part of why Sophie is willing to go to the mattresses on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was speculation about what Joe heard on the Ring camera. An insider said he heard Sophia trashing him, and that was the final straw.

Yeah, I don’t blame her.

He thinks he’s Justin Timberlake and it’s the 1990’s. The way he tried to paint Sophie as a cheater/partier/bad mom in the most passive aggressive way was super gross. He didn’t even have the balls to do it directly, but hid behind “sources” and leaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is entirely speculative, but I wonder if there are tensions between them on the privacy of the children. They've both talked about the importance of privacy, but I've always had the feeling that the level of privacy was really driven by Sophie. Certainly Joe and Sophie's children are kept more private than the children of Kevin and Nick, and I wonder if Joe wouldn't prefer to loosen the reins a bit. The choice of home in England certainly suggests priority being given to allowing the girls to grow up in a more "normal" and private way. But even if they are on the same page about wanting privacy in theory, anyone can tell that the girls' privacy will be easier to protect in England, and that is likely at least part of why Sophie is willing to go to the mattresses on this.

I agree with you completely.

I think it’s telling that within 24 hours of filing for divorce, Joe Jonas scheduled a paparazzi shoot with his kids. That was a clear F U to Sophie.

I hope she gets custody. She’s the only one trying to protect the kids. Jonas treats them like props.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is entirely speculative, but I wonder if there are tensions between them on the privacy of the children. They've both talked about the importance of privacy, but I've always had the feeling that the level of privacy was really driven by Sophie. Certainly Joe and Sophie's children are kept more private than the children of Kevin and Nick, and I wonder if Joe wouldn't prefer to loosen the reins a bit. The choice of home in England certainly suggests priority being given to allowing the girls to grow up in a more "normal" and private way. But even if they are on the same page about wanting privacy in theory, anyone can tell that the girls' privacy will be easier to protect in England, and that is likely at least part of why Sophie is willing to go to the mattresses on this.

I agree with you completely.

I think it’s telling that within 24 hours of filing for divorce, Joe Jonas scheduled a paparazzi shoot with his kids. That was a clear F U to Sophie.

I hope she gets custody. She’s the only one trying to protect the kids. Jonas treats them like props.

She’s been seen with them plenty over the past week or so playing the down to earth mom in sweatpants. She’s not exactly hiding and is very much trying to show that she is an involved parent (and argue that hence the kids should be with her in the UK)