Anonymous wrote:Are the kids back in the UK yet?

Are they still in NY?

2 weeks is not a lot of time to get to England, adjust to jet lag, get settled and and then get back to the US to go with Dad…on tour. This sucks for the kids.

Are the kids back in the UK yet?

Are they still in NY?

Joe Jonas went about this underhandedly and tried to make Sophie look like a bad mom. THEN files for divorce. If he has the kids, parent alienation will happen. His actions speak loudly why he shouldn’t have sole custody. Probably shouldn’t even have 50.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the people thinking it is in the kids best interest to cut their father out of their lives. All those checkmate Joe posts or posts that musicians are not fit to be parents if they tour is just sexist drivel.

Kids need their parents. It isn’t winning for the kids for them to not see their dad.

Yes but WHY do kids need their parents? It's because kids need to be nurtured, loved, and taken care of. It's not mere proximity of their biological parent magically results in happy, healthy kids. Those parents have to actually DO things to care for their kids, otherwise actually I think their kids would be better off with someone else.

I think kids need a home and a lot of stability and consistency. In a normal 50/50 divorce where both parents stay local and the kids and mom and dad are living maybe, max, 30 minutes apart, and the kids can attend school from either house and spend holidays with either or both, and if one parent has an emergency the other parent can get the kids and pick up the slack, then I absolutely think the kids should be 50/50 and would never support either parent getting full custody.

That's not what is on the table here. There is one parent who has put effort and thinking into creating a home for these kids, ensuring a network of friends, family, and school supports who can help to make that home really secure for the kids, and has made serious sacrifices regarding career and lifestyle in order to create that home. And then we have another parent who hasn't done any of those things and has a lifestyle that means he doesn't really have a home or much stability in his life from day to day.

So yes, I hope Sophie gets primary custody for the sake of the kids. I don't care that they are young. Young kids need stability too! I would of course expect that Joe would get the kids for long periods during school holidays and extensive visitation. I just think that Sophie is offering them a proper home and life and Joe is not.

If that changes and he settles down in a year or two, you can always make changes to a custody agreement. But the idea that these kids should be shuttling back and forth between the UK and wherever their dad is on tour for the foreseeable future, until either Joe decides to settle down somewhere or Sophie gives in and moves to the US to make it easier on the kids, doesn't make sense to me. Sophie already has a life set up for them. Joe doesn't. He can be holidays+visitation dad until he decides to create a life that puts his kids first.

It is your belief backed uo by no evidence that Joe doesn't love or care for or nurture his kids because his job takes him on the road. I guess that Beyonce and Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood and Pink are all horrible parents who should love custody of their kids given they took their kids on tour with them. You really think they don't care about their kids or nurtyre their kids or love their kids because they bring them on tour? Not all kids grow up in the same lifestyle with two parents who never travel or leave home. It doesn't actually mean they don't love their children. Sophie may have to travel for work - if she brings the kids with her, is she too then a horrible parent who doesn't love or nurture or care for her kids. She should leave them at home with the nanny rather than them joining her where she is on set? Your traditional view that the only loving family is one with a parent home all the time is just not how everyone lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is bad for Joe, but he had to take the deal.

Sophie will enroll the kids in school in the UK and can show that they have a regular home. Same school, same house every time they go to the UK. Like clockwork.

Meanwhile, JJ is shuttling the girls every two weeks to a new city - his world tour goes deep into 2024.

By the time his tour is done, the girls will have established a routine in the UK and that will lead to them being tied to the school year in the UK.

Checkmate, Joe.

Those kids are not being enrolled anywhere for 2 weeks each month. Both parents will hire someone to take care of the kids at home. There is no winning by or checkmate of anybody.

Oh please. Even my DC preschool would happily take my money and let my kid attend 2 weeks a month.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the people thinking it is in the kids best interest to cut their father out of their lives. All those checkmate Joe posts or posts that musicians are not fit to be parents if they tour is just sexist drivel.

Kids need their parents. It isn’t winning for the kids for them to not see their dad.

I completely agree with all of this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is bad for Joe, but he had to take the deal.

Sophie will enroll the kids in school in the UK and can show that they have a regular home. Same school, same house every time they go to the UK. Like clockwork.

Meanwhile, JJ is shuttling the girls every two weeks to a new city - his world tour goes deep into 2024.

By the time his tour is done, the girls will have established a routine in the UK and that will lead to them being tied to the school year in the UK.

Checkmate, Joe.

Those kids are not being enrolled anywhere for 2 weeks each month. Both parents will hire someone to take care of the kids at home. There is no winning by or checkmate of anybody.

They are young. Sophie will enroll the oldest and every other two weeks she will be at the same stable place.

Eventually a judge will determine switching like this is insanity, as is having literal babies on tour, so Sophie should wind up with physical custody.

Exactly. She has to go through the international 50/50 trial so they can gather enough evidence of how horrible this schedule is for toddlers.

Sophie will enroll the oldest in preschool, her teachers will be able to testify to how hard it is for a 3 year old to deal with jet lag every 2 weeks. They will talk about how sad the little girl was to miss the field trip to the pumpkin patch or whatever. You better believe Sophie will bring the girls to the pediatrician the moment they get home for help with sleep issues.

This trial period is basically giving Sophie’s team time to gather evidence. Joe is going to be on tour traveling to different cities the entire time. He has zero chance of showing any type of stability.

The writing is on the wall.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the people thinking it is in the kids best interest to cut their father out of their lives. All those checkmate Joe posts or posts that musicians are not fit to be parents if they tour is just sexist drivel.

Kids need their parents. It isn’t winning for the kids for them to not see their dad.

Nobody is saying Joe will be cut off from his kids. Where are you getting that strawman?

Right now what everyone sees is a battle for the children’s primary residence.

Whoever gets the kids for the school year will have more custody. Period. There is no 50/50 when parents live in different countries.

Right now it’s looking very likely that’s going to be Sophie. The kids will go to school in England and will spend vacations with Joe. Realistically they will have a provision that Joe can visit the children frequently—but he would need to travel to them—not the other way around.

THAT is what people are calling a win. Nobody is suggesting that Joe is going to be removed from the kid’s lives. And definitely not Sophie.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the people thinking it is in the kids best interest to cut their father out of their lives. All those checkmate Joe posts or posts that musicians are not fit to be parents if they tour is just sexist drivel.

Kids need their parents. It isn’t winning for the kids for them to not see their dad.

Yes but WHY do kids need their parents? It's because kids need to be nurtured, loved, and taken care of. It's not mere proximity of their biological parent magically results in happy, healthy kids. Those parents have to actually DO things to care for their kids, otherwise actually I think their kids would be better off with someone else.

I think kids need a home and a lot of stability and consistency. In a normal 50/50 divorce where both parents stay local and the kids and mom and dad are living maybe, max, 30 minutes apart, and the kids can attend school from either house and spend holidays with either or both, and if one parent has an emergency the other parent can get the kids and pick up the slack, then I absolutely think the kids should be 50/50 and would never support either parent getting full custody.

That's not what is on the table here. There is one parent who has put effort and thinking into creating a home for these kids, ensuring a network of friends, family, and school supports who can help to make that home really secure for the kids, and has made serious sacrifices regarding career and lifestyle in order to create that home. And then we have another parent who hasn't done any of those things and has a lifestyle that means he doesn't really have a home or much stability in his life from day to day.

So yes, I hope Sophie gets primary custody for the sake of the kids. I don't care that they are young. Young kids need stability too! I would of course expect that Joe would get the kids for long periods during school holidays and extensive visitation. I just think that Sophie is offering them a proper home and life and Joe is not.

If that changes and he settles down in a year or two, you can always make changes to a custody agreement. But the idea that these kids should be shuttling back and forth between the UK and wherever their dad is on tour for the foreseeable future, until either Joe decides to settle down somewhere or Sophie gives in and moves to the US to make it easier on the kids, doesn't make sense to me. Sophie already has a life set up for them. Joe doesn't. He can be holidays+visitation dad until he decides to create a life that puts his kids first.

I can't imagine the sleep schedule for toddlers who have to change time zones every 2 weeks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is bad for Joe, but he had to take the deal.

Sophie will enroll the kids in school in the UK and can show that they have a regular home. Same school, same house every time they go to the UK. Like clockwork.

Meanwhile, JJ is shuttling the girls every two weeks to a new city - his world tour goes deep into 2024.

By the time his tour is done, the girls will have established a routine in the UK and that will lead to them being tied to the school year in the UK.

Checkmate, Joe.

How are the girls going to be enrolled in school when they have to leave every two weeks to go with Joe in the US??

This will go on for a while until Sophie petitions a UK court to modify the order because it is untenable for the kids' education

I don’t get the people thinking it is in the kids best interest to cut their father out of their lives. All those checkmate Joe posts or posts that musicians are not fit to be parents if they tour is just sexist drivel.

Kids need their parents. It isn’t winning for the kids for them to not see their dad.

The girls are 3 and 1, yes, but Sophie has already found a preschool in the UK for the oldest and it sounds like she has attended school there for some period of time already. Maybe just a month or something, but it's a start.

In her filing, Sophie also stated that the younger child had attended classes (probably mommy and me classes with Sophie or a family member or nanny) either at the same nursery school or another one in the area. One thing the filing emphasized is that these were places Sophie has a relationship with, either because she attended herself as a child or because of her family's connection to the area.

So yes, I do think Sophie will enroll the kids in nursery school, even if they can only attend for two weeks out of every four. I think she has a good enough relationship with the school to do this without them complaining, and besides, it is nursery school -- the kids are playing and singing songs, not learning calculus.

She will also continue to attend classes and cultural events near her home in England, give the kids lots of time with her extended family, etc. A question mark is her career -- she will need to travel to promote the show she just filmed, and she's the lead so it could be intense. It doesn't appear she has anything else in development, she might postpone signing on for new roles, or anything that might film soon, until this is resolved. But she can't put it off indefinitely, as she's already taken off 3 years to have her kids and there are risks with just disappearing. Though the weird thing about fame is that if she has public support through her custody proceeding, that could be enough to maintain fame and public interest in order to garner roles down the line.

The biggest thing working in her favor right now is that Joe does not appear to have any plan to settle anywhere in the US, and even if he does, he doesn't have the support or nurturing set up she already has lined up in England. And, sorry to say, my suspicion is that like a lot of men, he lacks the focus, energy, and vision to create a life like that for his kids, whereas Sophie, like many women, clearly has that ability.

This is why kids wind up with mom a lot. If men don't like it, you have to figure out how to prioritize kids, "nest", and create stable environments that meet the kids' needs. Men can do this, they just don't. It's a combination of will and lack of skills that they don't develop early in life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is bad for Joe, but he had to take the deal.

Sophie will enroll the kids in school in the UK and can show that they have a regular home. Same school, same house every time they go to the UK. Like clockwork.

Meanwhile, JJ is shuttling the girls every two weeks to a new city - his world tour goes deep into 2024.

By the time his tour is done, the girls will have established a routine in the UK and that will lead to them being tied to the school year in the UK.

Checkmate, Joe.

Those kids are not being enrolled anywhere for 2 weeks each month. Both parents will hire someone to take care of the kids at home. There is no winning by or checkmate of anybody.

They are young. Sophie will enroll the oldest and every other two weeks she will be at the same stable place.

Eventually a judge will determine switching like this is insanity, as is having literal babies on tour, so Sophie should wind up with physical custody.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is bad for Joe, but he had to take the deal.

Sophie will enroll the kids in school in the UK and can show that they have a regular home. Same school, same house every time they go to the UK. Like clockwork.

Meanwhile, JJ is shuttling the girls every two weeks to a new city - his world tour goes deep into 2024.

By the time his tour is done, the girls will have established a routine in the UK and that will lead to them being tied to the school year in the UK.

Checkmate, Joe.

How are the girls going to be enrolled in school when they have to leave every two weeks to go with Joe in the US??

Well this is just temporary. The girls are 3 and 1, correct? And it's already October and this is only until the end of the year. I hope they can come up with something that allows the girls to stay in the UK for schooling (UK schools have way more mid-year breaks that will lend themselves better to flying back to NYC to be with Joe). I just cannot imagine being so selfish as to force your kids to be raised in NYC when there is an option to live such an idyllic life in England.

Off topic but I think I especially find this case so interesting and hard because Sophie is so young and is fighting so hard for her kids. I find it really admirable. I also can't get this image of her about to give birth out of my mind! She looks like a child. https://www.instagram.com/p/CmzP-LZtGJ-/?hl=en&img_index=3