Reply to Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Sophie Turner and Joe Jonas headed to divorce "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics