Anatomy of a Custody Trial - Inside the Brinkley-Cook Mess
A court-appointed psychiatrist’s report yet to be introduced in the sensational Christie Brinkley-Peter Cook divorce trial will reveal that Brinkley is consumed by rage, Cook’s attorney said late last week in a television interview. But as lawyers for the two sides traded charges in exclusive TODAY interviews, the supermodel’s attorney said that the report also says that Brinkley should get primary custody of the couple’s two children.
The psychiatrist “has … found that Christie is angered and she’s going to have to overcome her anger,” Cook’s attorney, Norman Sheresky, told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira before heading to court for the second day of testimony in the salacious trial that began Wednesday.
Sheresky said that the psychiatrist also determined that testimony about Cook’s $3,000-a-month appetite for Internet porn should be “out of the case,” and that “Peter is a wonderful father. He should have a relationship with the children, and Christie Brinkley should not interfere with it.”
But in a separate interview that followed directly on TODAY, Brinkley’s attorney, Bob Cohen, said his adversary left out an important element in the report. “The court psychiatrist found that Christie should be the custodial parent,” he told Vieira. “But being the custodial parent doesn’t mean Peter doesn’t get to see the children. He’s going to get to see the children. He has seen the children. He will continue to see the children.”
See the interview with the two lawyers here.
Cook sought to keep the salacious trial private, but Brinkley fought to make open to the public and the media. Sheresky said that Brinkley is driven by anger and that her determination to air the couple’s dirty laundry will ultimately harm their children.
I do believe that this trial offers at least two important lessons for everyone facing divorce in New York:
1. Custody trials are nasty affairs, not only for celebrities, but also for anyone else going through a divorce. They rip families apart and should be avoided, if at all possible, for the sake of the children. Don’t be shortsighted. You have to co-parent with your spouse once the case is over. Think of the years to come – the graduations, weddings, Holidays, and grandchildren in your family’s future. Both Cook and Brinkley have talented, experienced counsel. This case could and should have settled quietly out of court.
2. There is a difference between “custody” and “visitation.” The fact that Christie Brinkley is asking the Court for sole custody does not mean that she wants to keep Peter Cook from seeing the children. This misconception has been widely reported in the media and is being perpetuated by the Cook camp. Sole legal custody simply means that, should she win, Brinkley will have the right to make important decisions on the children’s behalf with regard to their medical care, education, religious upbringing, and general welfare. But part and parcel of any custody order of the Court will be a parental access schedule granting the non-custodial parent frequent and meaningful access time with the children.
