Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you have two kids this seems like a really juvenile excuse to ask for a divorce. You go to counseling like a grown up and try to work it out first. He is really earning that reputation for be an ^sshat.

I agree with this. I guess it depends a little upon what was said—I can certainly think of some things that it would be pretty hard to come back from if I heard my husband say them—but I think I would at least try counseling in almost every scenario. (I am the kind of fuddy-duddy that generally thinks that people, especially those with kids, are a little too quick to pull the trigger on divorce these days, though.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

She’s 27 he’s 34. Not a big difference in age. He doesn’t sound or act stable regarding the drama HE created with the divorce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

To add to this, I want to be clear that I don't think a "permanent/indefinite move" necessarily means that they didn't intend to still spend a lot of time outside the UK. Obviously they vacation a lot (as I would if I had their resources), and they both have and will likely continue to have international work commitments. But to me that doesn't really detract from their being a "home base," especially with the oldest girl getting to school age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

Sophie's original plan according to her own documents was to come to the US on Sept 20th and fly with the girls back to England for one week for a work engagement and then return to the USA on Sept 28th and join Joe on tour for the US tour dates (they were in the US all fall). There was no intention to settle back in the UK for the fall nor was the tour stop a vacation. Her intention had been to remain in the USA for the fall with the girls and Joe. The tour is on a break from early December until the end of February. It seems that is when they planned the house closing so they could return and move to the house at that time.

I don't think residence is clearly established at all as there was no clear residence at the time of the separation / divorce. Although there may have been an intended future residence in the UK, that doesn't count as residence at the time.

Joan filmed for the months of May and August. Sophie was also filming for the month of May. She has said the older daughter was full time in preschool and that she provided all day to day care but the locations for filming in May were in London, Kent, Birmingham, and throughout the Midlands. It isn't clear how she was both filming and home full time that month.

The dates align with them doing an England stint for her work on Joan. I think the house in England was like the house in Florida. A base but not somewhere they really intended to live on a regular basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

Sophie's original plan according to her own documents was to come to the US on Sept 20th and fly with the girls back to England for one week for a work engagement and then return to the USA on Sept 28th and join Joe on tour for the US tour dates (they were in the US all fall). There was no intention to settle back in the UK for the fall nor was the tour stop a vacation. Her intention had been to remain in the USA for the fall with the girls and Joe. The tour is on a break from early December until the end of February. It seems that is when they planned the house closing so they could return and move to the house at that time.

I don't think residence is clearly established at all as there was no clear residence at the time of the separation / divorce. Although there may have been an intended future residence in the UK, that doesn't count as residence at the time.

Joan filmed for the months of May and August. Sophie was also filming for the month of May. She has said the older daughter was full time in preschool and that she provided all day to day care but the locations for filming in May were in London, Kent, Birmingham, and throughout the Midlands. It isn't clear how she was both filming and home full time that month.

The dates align with them doing an England stint for her work on Joan. I think the house in England was like the house in Florida. A base but not somewhere they really intended to live on a regular basis.

Assuming you are correct about everything, were is residence? Florida isn't- they sold their house and already left

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

Sophie's original plan according to her own documents was to come to the US on Sept 20th and fly with the girls back to England for one week for a work engagement and then return to the USA on Sept 28th and join Joe on tour for the US tour dates (they were in the US all fall). There was no intention to settle back in the UK for the fall nor was the tour stop a vacation. Her intention had been to remain in the USA for the fall with the girls and Joe. The tour is on a break from early December until the end of February. It seems that is when they planned the house closing so they could return and move to the house at that time.

I don't think residence is clearly established at all as there was no clear residence at the time of the separation / divorce. Although there may have been an intended future residence in the UK, that doesn't count as residence at the time.

Joan filmed for the months of May and August. Sophie was also filming for the month of May. She has said the older daughter was full time in preschool and that she provided all day to day care but the locations for filming in May were in London, Kent, Birmingham, and throughout the Midlands. It isn't clear how she was both filming and home full time that month.

The dates align with them doing an England stint for her work on Joan. I think the house in England was like the house in Florida. A base but not somewhere they really intended to live on a regular basis.

You are misstating what Sophie's filing says about the fall. It says:

47. The parties’ shared plan was for the Mother and children to join the Father and his extended family for part of the Father’s band’s United States tour, and then to return home to England.

48. The family would continue to live in a rental property in England, and then move in together to their new home in England upon its completion in December 2023.

In other words, Sophie and the girls were to join the tour for "part of" (but not necessarily all of) the remaining U.S. dates and that at some point she and the girls were set to "return home to England," where they would "continue to live" in the long-term rental until the new property closed in December, when Joe would be on break from tour and they would move in to the new house.

I don't know when Sophie and the girls were supposed to return from England after Sophie's September 28 work commitment or exactly how long Sophie and the girls were supposed to accompany the tour, because her filing does not say. Sure, there is a reading where "part of" the tour just refers to the fact that the tour was already in progress, and that perhaps she means they were to return to England only after the last tour date in December, stay in the rental for a week or however long, and then move into the house. I take it that is how you read it, and I don't think that interpretation can be excluded based on the actual text. I think a more natural reading is that Sophie and the girls were going to join the tour for some of the fall dates and then return to the England rental some time before Joe finished the U.S. tour in December.

In either case, her filing states that there was an intention, at some point, to return to the rental, and then to move from there to the new house. So regardless of how long they accompanied the tour, to me that is an extended vacation and then a return home, rather than just successive stints. (I know that you disagree.)

I agree that intended future residence doesn't count. If Sophie had always wanted to raise the girls in England, and even if Joe had agreed, but they had never moved there, she would clearly be out of luck. But she is saying they did move; based on the facts she alleges, I agree. Whether they have resided in England long enough or established sufficient contacts for England to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce/child custody is a slightly different question. To me, based on the facts as alleged, I think it should be resolved in favor of Sophie/England, but I understand you think it should be resolved in favor of Joe/somewhere (anywhere?) in the U.S.

My understanding is that "day-to-day care" can be understood as a legal term roughly equivalent to custody/responsibility. It doesn't necessarily mean that Sophie is at home all day taking care of the kids, but could just mean she is responsible for finding them childcare, etc. Her filing says she "provides all of the children's day-to-day care in England," and I will cop to not knowing whether the law considers each parent to provide "all of" a child's day-to-day care (kind of like joint and several liability), or if she is really asserting that she takes basically all responsibility for the kids; if the latter, I obviously has no idea who does what in their relationship, and have no basis to evaluate that claim (though someone pointed out earlier that they thought Joe must have left England at various points for tour rehearsals, so at the very least it is clear that Joe was not providing all of the daily care at all points while Sophie was filming).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

Sophie's original plan according to her own documents was to come to the US on Sept 20th and fly with the girls back to England for one week for a work engagement and then return to the USA on Sept 28th and join Joe on tour for the US tour dates (they were in the US all fall). There was no intention to settle back in the UK for the fall nor was the tour stop a vacation. Her intention had been to remain in the USA for the fall with the girls and Joe. The tour is on a break from early December until the end of February. It seems that is when they planned the house closing so they could return and move to the house at that time.

I don't think residence is clearly established at all as there was no clear residence at the time of the separation / divorce. Although there may have been an intended future residence in the UK, that doesn't count as residence at the time.

Joan filmed for the months of May and August. Sophie was also filming for the month of May. She has said the older daughter was full time in preschool and that she provided all day to day care but the locations for filming in May were in London, Kent, Birmingham, and throughout the Midlands. It isn't clear how she was both filming and home full time that month.

The dates align with them doing an England stint for her work on Joan. I think the house in England was like the house in Florida. A base but not somewhere they really intended to live on a regular basis.

You are misstating what Sophie's filing says about the fall. It says:

47. The parties’ shared plan was for the Mother and children to join the Father and his extended family for part of the Father’s band’s United States tour, and then to return home to England.

48. The family would continue to live in a rental property in England, and then move in together to their new home in England upon its completion in December 2023.

In other words, Sophie and the girls were to join the tour for "part of" (but not necessarily all of) the remaining U.S. dates and that at some point she and the girls were set to "return home to England," where they would "continue to live" in the long-term rental until the new property closed in December, when Joe would be on break from tour and they would move in to the new house.

I don't know when Sophie and the girls were supposed to return from England after Sophie's September 28 work commitment or exactly how long Sophie and the girls were supposed to accompany the tour, because her filing does not say. Sure, there is a reading where "part of" the tour just refers to the fact that the tour was already in progress, and that perhaps she means they were to return to England only after the last tour date in December, stay in the rental for a week or however long, and then move into the house. I take it that is how you read it, and I don't think that interpretation can be excluded based on the actual text. I think a more natural reading is that Sophie and the girls were going to join the tour for some of the fall dates and then return to the England rental some time before Joe finished the U.S. tour in December.

In either case, her filing states that there was an intention, at some point, to return to the rental, and then to move from there to the new house. So regardless of how long they accompanied the tour, to me that is an extended vacation and then a return home, rather than just successive stints. (I know that you disagree.)

I agree that intended future residence doesn't count. If Sophie had always wanted to raise the girls in England, and even if Joe had agreed, but they had never moved there, she would clearly be out of luck. But she is saying they did move; based on the facts she alleges, I agree. Whether they have resided in England long enough or established sufficient contacts for England to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce/child custody is a slightly different question. To me, based on the facts as alleged, I think it should be resolved in favor of Sophie/England, but I understand you think it should be resolved in favor of Joe/somewhere (anywhere?) in the U.S.

My understanding is that "day-to-day care" can be understood as a legal term roughly equivalent to custody/responsibility. It doesn't necessarily mean that Sophie is at home all day taking care of the kids, but could just mean she is responsible for finding them childcare, etc. Her filing says she "provides all of the children's day-to-day care in England," and I will cop to not knowing whether the law considers each parent to provide "all of" a child's day-to-day care (kind of like joint and several liability), or if she is really asserting that she takes basically all responsibility for the kids; if the latter, I obviously has no idea who does what in their relationship, and have no basis to evaluate that claim (though someone pointed out earlier that they thought Joe must have left England at various points for tour rehearsals, so at the very least it is clear that Joe was not providing all of the daily care at all points while Sophie was filming).

Not at all. I have not at all said where or how I think it should be resolved because I don't see a clear legal residence. I just disagree that they were clearly established in England as their habitual residence. The courts will have to determine residence and custody.

I think if travelling to a location for one parents work, for example, to the USA for Joe's work is considered a vacation, then so is travelling to England for Sophie's work. The timing clearly shows they went there in the spring for her to film her show. And that being in the USA in the fall was for Joe's tour. In both cases, they crossed the ocean to relocate due to work obligations.

[Anonymous]

The Jonas family always seemed toxic to me. Napoleon complex as well from all those little dudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

Sophie's original plan according to her own documents was to come to the US on Sept 20th and fly with the girls back to England for one week for a work engagement and then return to the USA on Sept 28th and join Joe on tour for the US tour dates (they were in the US all fall). There was no intention to settle back in the UK for the fall nor was the tour stop a vacation. Her intention had been to remain in the USA for the fall with the girls and Joe. The tour is on a break from early December until the end of February. It seems that is when they planned the house closing so they could return and move to the house at that time.

I don't think residence is clearly established at all as there was no clear residence at the time of the separation / divorce. Although there may have been an intended future residence in the UK, that doesn't count as residence at the time.

Joan filmed for the months of May and August. Sophie was also filming for the month of May. She has said the older daughter was full time in preschool and that she provided all day to day care but the locations for filming in May were in London, Kent, Birmingham, and throughout the Midlands. It isn't clear how she was both filming and home full time that month.

The dates align with them doing an England stint for her work on Joan. I think the house in England was like the house in Florida. A base but not somewhere they really intended to live on a regular basis.

You are misstating what Sophie's filing says about the fall. It says:

47. The parties’ shared plan was for the Mother and children to join the Father and his extended family for part of the Father’s band’s United States tour, and then to return home to England.

48. The family would continue to live in a rental property in England, and then move in together to their new home in England upon its completion in December 2023.

In other words, Sophie and the girls were to join the tour for "part of" (but not necessarily all of) the remaining U.S. dates and that at some point she and the girls were set to "return home to England," where they would "continue to live" in the long-term rental until the new property closed in December, when Joe would be on break from tour and they would move in to the new house.

I don't know when Sophie and the girls were supposed to return from England after Sophie's September 28 work commitment or exactly how long Sophie and the girls were supposed to accompany the tour, because her filing does not say. Sure, there is a reading where "part of" the tour just refers to the fact that the tour was already in progress, and that perhaps she means they were to return to England only after the last tour date in December, stay in the rental for a week or however long, and then move into the house. I take it that is how you read it, and I don't think that interpretation can be excluded based on the actual text. I think a more natural reading is that Sophie and the girls were going to join the tour for some of the fall dates and then return to the England rental some time before Joe finished the U.S. tour in December.

In either case, her filing states that there was an intention, at some point, to return to the rental, and then to move from there to the new house. So regardless of how long they accompanied the tour, to me that is an extended vacation and then a return home, rather than just successive stints. (I know that you disagree.)

I agree that intended future residence doesn't count. If Sophie had always wanted to raise the girls in England, and even if Joe had agreed, but they had never moved there, she would clearly be out of luck. But she is saying they did move; based on the facts she alleges, I agree. Whether they have resided in England long enough or established sufficient contacts for England to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce/child custody is a slightly different question. To me, based on the facts as alleged, I think it should be resolved in favor of Sophie/England, but I understand you think it should be resolved in favor of Joe/somewhere (anywhere?) in the U.S.

My understanding is that "day-to-day care" can be understood as a legal term roughly equivalent to custody/responsibility. It doesn't necessarily mean that Sophie is at home all day taking care of the kids, but could just mean she is responsible for finding them childcare, etc. Her filing says she "provides all of the children's day-to-day care in England," and I will cop to not knowing whether the law considers each parent to provide "all of" a child's day-to-day care (kind of like joint and several liability), or if she is really asserting that she takes basically all responsibility for the kids; if the latter, I obviously has no idea who does what in their relationship, and have no basis to evaluate that claim (though someone pointed out earlier that they thought Joe must have left England at various points for tour rehearsals, so at the very least it is clear that Joe was not providing all of the daily care at all points while Sophie was filming).

Not at all. I have not at all said where or how I think it should be resolved because I don't see a clear legal residence. I just disagree that they were clearly established in England as their habitual residence. The courts will have to determine residence and custody.

I think if travelling to a location for one parents work, for example, to the USA for Joe's work is considered a vacation, then so is travelling to England for Sophie's work. The timing clearly shows they went there in the spring for her to film her show. And that being in the USA in the fall was for Joe's tour. In both cases, they crossed the ocean to relocate due to work obligations.

What about yearly well visits, dentist appointments and preschool? Because all of that happened in England.

I could be wrong but I’ve never taken my kids to get their teeth cleaned when we were on vacation.

[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: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.

They were married in France. He kept their passports and refused to let them return to their mom. That is kidnapping

You’re being intentionally obtuse. They married in Vegas first. And the father didn’t keep them from their mother- he filed for divorce which, by court order, kept her from taking them back to England to establish residence there, at least until a temporary custody arrangement is established. She was welcome to be with them in the us and has been. The reality is that it’s a super messy situation.

Do you realize how absurd that is? The mother is English. They had a home in the UK. They were looking at schools in the UK. His filing should not prevent them from traveling to the UK.

Okay, and their father is American. They lived in the US for the children’s entire lives minus 2-3 months between mid April and July.

Looking at schools and buying homes is meaningless when you’re a celebrity and live a nomadic lifestyle. What’s material is how long they stay there. Which in this case, barely happened. Post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence.

That's not true. You're not normally allowed to divorce and uproot your children to wherever you want their primary residence to be now that you are free to choose on your own. I don't love living in DC, but if I divorced my husband I couldn't just say, me and the kids are going to live in Georgia now. No court would allow it absent my husband's agreement (assuming, I guess, a baseline level of shared responsibility for the children between us).

Just as a practical matter, it can't be that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence." Because if they truly have an equal opportunity to determine it, and they disagree, how could that be worked out? No court would say my kids have to spend 50% of their time in DC and 50% of their time in Georgia, and we can just figure out home schooling or whatever. You do sometimes see school year in one place vs. breaks and summers in the other, but clearly the school year is the primary residence in that case.

I'm also not sure if you really believe that "post separation, both parents have an equal opportunity to determine their children’s primary residence," because I'm not sure if you are one of the people saying it should be 50/50 UK/US or if what you really think is that they should be primarily US-based (which would not be what Sophie chooses with her "equal opportunity").

I get that you think the move to England earlier this year should be discounted because the girls spent most of their lives before that in the U.S. To my mind (especially considering the girls' very young ages), they moved and that's where "home" is now, and Joe shouldn't get to displace them again just because he regrets the move or it's inconvenient now that he is divorcing their mother.

You seem to think their home is in the UK. I don’t think that’s been established. If you look at the documents they never stay in any one place for any significant period of time. These kids don’t have a home from which to be displaced from. Sophie is just as guilty of trying to relocate them as Joe is, because they never put down roots.

The UK isn’t where they spent significant time and it’s not even where the kids were most recently when Joe filed. It’s not the kids home- it’s Sophie’s “home” by nature of where she grew up. I think she is desperately screaming that the kids home was the uk when legally it wasn’t- it’s just where she wanted to move with the kids and clearly Joe no longer wants to do that. And now that they’re divorcing, and they have no clearly established home base at the moment, both of them do have equal opportunity for making their case over where the kids should be raised.

I don’t think that Sophie should get to raise them in England by default just because it’s where she intended to raise them before she and her husband separated. How would that be fair? a judge will ultimately decide what is both fair and in the best interest of the kids

Again, I get that we just disagree on this. To my mind, and based on my read of the documents (and assuming Sophie's filing is at least mostly fact-based), it seems clear to me that the family moved to England in April/May and that they intended that move to be permanent/indefinite. They sold their house in Florida, and they entered into a contract to purchase a house in England (I know the sale hasn't closed, but that's not relevant to my point), and they moved into a long term rental to live in while they waited for the sale to close. The girls do activities in England, the older girl attended nursery school full-time there, and according to Sophie the girls have routine medical/dental providers there. It is clearly a move to me (rather than just a stint).

At some point, Sophie's filming schedule was set to overlap with Joe's tour for a month or so, and they agreed that the girls should travel with Joe because he would have more time available in the daytime to spend with them. To me, that is essentially a vacation and doesn't alter the fact that "home base" for the girls had moved to and still was in England. It sounds like you view the spring/summer in England as just another stop on the Sophie-and-Joe world tour, which then moved on to several U.S. stops without Sophie. I don't know where specifically you think home base for the girls should be held to be, except "somewhere within the borders of the United States" -- it sounds like maybe you think there is just no home base at all. In that case, I think England would still be a good candidate for jurisdiction based on the house/school/other contacts (and because I don't really think it matters where a one year old and a three year old born in the middle of a global pandemic have spent most of their life, when the alternative is a country where they have citizenship, close family, and the same language), and because to me it does seem like Sophie is presenting a more stable and better living situation. But we probably disagree on that as well.

In any case, I agree that it doesn't seem like there's a clear-cut slam dunk in any of the jurisdictions due to the relative recency of the move, and obviously a court will look at the facts and make a determination.

Sophie's original plan according to her own documents was to come to the US on Sept 20th and fly with the girls back to England for one week for a work engagement and then return to the USA on Sept 28th and join Joe on tour for the US tour dates (they were in the US all fall). There was no intention to settle back in the UK for the fall nor was the tour stop a vacation. Her intention had been to remain in the USA for the fall with the girls and Joe. The tour is on a break from early December until the end of February. It seems that is when they planned the house closing so they could return and move to the house at that time.

I don't think residence is clearly established at all as there was no clear residence at the time of the separation / divorce. Although there may have been an intended future residence in the UK, that doesn't count as residence at the time.

Joan filmed for the months of May and August. Sophie was also filming for the month of May. She has said the older daughter was full time in preschool and that she provided all day to day care but the locations for filming in May were in London, Kent, Birmingham, and throughout the Midlands. It isn't clear how she was both filming and home full time that month.

The dates align with them doing an England stint for her work on Joan. I think the house in England was like the house in Florida. A base but not somewhere they really intended to live on a regular basis.

You are misstating what Sophie's filing says about the fall. It says:

47. The parties’ shared plan was for the Mother and children to join the Father and his extended family for part of the Father’s band’s United States tour, and then to return home to England.

48. The family would continue to live in a rental property in England, and then move in together to their new home in England upon its completion in December 2023.

In other words, Sophie and the girls were to join the tour for "part of" (but not necessarily all of) the remaining U.S. dates and that at some point she and the girls were set to "return home to England," where they would "continue to live" in the long-term rental until the new property closed in December, when Joe would be on break from tour and they would move in to the new house.

I don't know when Sophie and the girls were supposed to return from England after Sophie's September 28 work commitment or exactly how long Sophie and the girls were supposed to accompany the tour, because her filing does not say. Sure, there is a reading where "part of" the tour just refers to the fact that the tour was already in progress, and that perhaps she means they were to return to England only after the last tour date in December, stay in the rental for a week or however long, and then move into the house. I take it that is how you read it, and I don't think that interpretation can be excluded based on the actual text. I think a more natural reading is that Sophie and the girls were going to join the tour for some of the fall dates and then return to the England rental some time before Joe finished the U.S. tour in December.

In either case, her filing states that there was an intention, at some point, to return to the rental, and then to move from there to the new house. So regardless of how long they accompanied the tour, to me that is an extended vacation and then a return home, rather than just successive stints. (I know that you disagree.)

I agree that intended future residence doesn't count. If Sophie had always wanted to raise the girls in England, and even if Joe had agreed, but they had never moved there, she would clearly be out of luck. But she is saying they did move; based on the facts she alleges, I agree. Whether they have resided in England long enough or established sufficient contacts for England to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce/child custody is a slightly different question. To me, based on the facts as alleged, I think it should be resolved in favor of Sophie/England, but I understand you think it should be resolved in favor of Joe/somewhere (anywhere?) in the U.S.

My understanding is that "day-to-day care" can be understood as a legal term roughly equivalent to custody/responsibility. It doesn't necessarily mean that Sophie is at home all day taking care of the kids, but could just mean she is responsible for finding them childcare, etc. Her filing says she "provides all of the children's day-to-day care in England," and I will cop to not knowing whether the law considers each parent to provide "all of" a child's day-to-day care (kind of like joint and several liability), or if she is really asserting that she takes basically all responsibility for the kids; if the latter, I obviously has no idea who does what in their relationship, and have no basis to evaluate that claim (though someone pointed out earlier that they thought Joe must have left England at various points for tour rehearsals, so at the very least it is clear that Joe was not providing all of the daily care at all points while Sophie was filming).

Not at all. I have not at all said where or how I think it should be resolved because I don't see a clear legal residence. I just disagree that they were clearly established in England as their habitual residence. The courts will have to determine residence and custody.

I think if travelling to a location for one parents work, for example, to the USA for Joe's work is considered a vacation, then so is travelling to England for Sophie's work. The timing clearly shows they went there in the spring for her to film her show. And that being in the USA in the fall was for Joe's tour. In both cases, they crossed the ocean to relocate due to work obligations.

What about yearly well visits, dentist appointments and preschool? Because all of that happened in England.

I could be wrong but I’ve never taken my kids to get their teeth cleaned when we were on vacation.

They have moved around for the entirety of the past year. At some point some where they had to take them to a doctor. Since they were in that location for a couple months, it makes sense to me they would do a doctor's visit and dentist visit etc. The preschool is a little suspect. I would like to see an attendance record and who did drop offs and pick ups. I have a feelings the child didn't attend for very long and likely it was a nanny doing most of the drop off and pick ups. Just like the same nanny takes care of them while they are on tour with Joe. I don't even know if the plan was to travel around with Joe or to base in NY or somewhere and he would fly out to gigs. THey may have planned to rent a place in NY or the US somewhere for the fall as well.

I don't consider any of it vacation. Both parents have jobs that involve a lot of moving around as they work in many locations. It isn't vacation for anyone when you are travelling with your family for work.

[Anonymous]

You all are nuts, spending hours writing pages and pages with your analysis.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe the bombshell ring camera footage was just her badmouthing him. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure if this changes anything, but it sounds like in the letter he wrote to the owner of the house they bought, JJ talks about England being their "forever home"

https://pagesix.com/2023/09/29/sophie-turner-reveals-letter-that-proves-joe-jonas-planned-forever-home-in-england/