Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook settle custody dispute
Supermodel Christie Brinkley and her ex-husband Peter Cook reached a sudden settlement in their divorce trial this morning. The sparring couple finalized details today at 6:15 a.m., deciding Christie, 54, would have sole custody of children Jack Paris, 13, and Sailor Lee, 10 (pictured at left, with members of performance troupe Cirque du Soleil), while Peter would be granted "parenting time." However Christie, who called the end of the deliberations "a very bittersweet moment," will have sole parental decision-making power.
"I was here fighting for custody," Christie said in an address to the media today. "I think a mother’sgreatest fear is somebody trying to take her children, trying to takecustody of her children. That’s what I was up against. And so I’ve woncustody and decision-making, and that’s really all I ever wanted."
The couple split two years ago after news broke that Peter, 49, was having an affair with his then-teenaged assistant.
Source: People.com; Photo by Startraks.
- Posted on Jul 10, 08 at 1:30PM
- Permalink
- 23 Comments
July 10th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Good for her!!! That Cook is a hot a$$ mess and his lawyer was even more of a pr!ck. I would have fought like hell too to make all the parental decisions and have sole custody of my children.
Cook dissed Brinkley to the Nth degree. Here she is using porn to spice up their sex life, while he’s making dates on-line and sleeping with a teenage whore and in her house no less. Just say you want out of the marriage. Why put your spouse through all this hurt and heartache when you can get a divorce and bang all the teenage sluts you want and still look like a stud.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
OK, I could swear that Jack is not Cook’s kid. I thought he was from her previous marriage? Even she said she didn’t regret the marriage becasue she got Sailor. Said nothing about Jack. Anyone?
July 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Jack’s bio dad is Ricky Taubman, and he gave up all custody of him and Peter was allowed to adopt Jack, so Jack is Peter’s son in the eyes of the law.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
hmmm…”I think a mother’s greatest fear is somebody trying to take her children, trying to take custody of her children. That’s what I was up against. And so I’ve won custody and decision-making, and that’s really all I ever wanted.”
I really hate when a woman thinks just because a marriage breaks up or there are infidelities in a marriage it gives them the right to take THEIR kids away.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Thanks Tracy! I thought I was going crazy!
July 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I understand the entire marriage was on her tab. Is that correct? Did he pay for anything or have any money? I didn’t know women(even wealthy ones) had come so far.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Whew! Glad that finally ended. It’s sad that all had to go to court to be aired out. Although, he gets what he deserves. Sounds like, from the grooming of the young teen to later become his “affair”, to the insane amounts of money spent on porn, to the endless sexcapades he had over webcams…..that this guy needs counseling, and to be kept away from young girls. Pretty gross. A lot more than “infidelities.” I wouldn’t want this guy to have a lot of time with the kids either.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Doesn’t Peter have the right to feel his children are being taken from him? Seems strange that she sees the children as hers alone, maybe thats why they started having problems. However Peters choices were extremely poor, lets hope some of this humiliation forces him to change for the better.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
she’s wrong… that man has a right to see his kids… i don’t think this is like russell and kimora where the parents live on two different coasts so there’s a different element there of custody… i think she’s just greedy…
and that poor boy, one father gave him up, and the other isn’t being allowed to see him…
how far does her right to “parental decisions” go? does she get to decide when and where and with whom he can see his children… i don’t see how that’s fair… i don’t know… i just don’t like it…
and before the rest of you say it, i know no one cares whether or not i like it… i just don’t… okay… (lol)
July 10th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Fay, I think I read that he’ll continue with the visitation schedule they already have in place. He sees the kids every Wednesday and every other weekend. I think it also said that he had them more often in the summer time. To be honest I think that’s pretty common. Weather or not it’s right is another issue.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
yeah, it always bugged me that a lot of parents feel like they alone have a right to their kids and the other parent does not. i understand that it’s easy for moms to think that no one will ever love their kids more than them, but fathers matter too. and having an involved father is very beneficial for kids.
i’m obviously not suggesting that peter should have gotten sole custody given his actions, but i do think he should have an equal say in major parenting decisions and liberal visitation.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
I think it’s horrible of how Peter, who had a gorgeous wife, would commit adultery with a young woman- what’s his problem? I could never understand that situation!
Anyway, about the custody of the kids, Peter is able to have some time with Jack and Sailor which is good; maybe in the future when the dust has settled the agreement can change for him to have more time with the kids and wise up better. Christie and Billy Joel pretty much shared the custody of Alexa and they have a friendship. Maybe someday it would go the same for Christie and Peter?
July 10th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I don’t like that Christie see’s THEIR kids as her’s alone. What Peter did may not be right but I don’t think it has an effect on his parenting, so its sad that he’ll only be able to get to see his children on her terms.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Both of the children are “his.” He adopted Jack after Christie bought out his bio father Rick Taubman, so he signed away his rights. It seems as if Christie has control issues regarding her children. It appears that she does not deal well with co-parenting.
This divorce should have never been public for the sake of her children. Apparently her excuse is that they’re in the mountains somewhere away from the media. That’s BS. Sailor and Jack may be in the mountains but all of their peers are not. They’ll hear about it and suffer….because Christie wanted to model the part of a scorned woman.
How sad for her children and what a demonstration of immaturity.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Heather- I would fight tooth and nail, move Heaven and Earth to keep my kids. I would pull out all the stops if my DH and I split and he tried taking the kids! That is my number one fear that someone will try to take my kids away from me.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
It’s not Cirque de Soleil but Cirque du Soleil
July 10th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I dont like she had to pay him so much money. And I cant believe she has 18 properties in Hamptons. I have never been there but that’s the place if i could I would live. I guess some of them are investments, which is great ! In OK mag, there is a spread of one of her homes, where she now resides. Boy is that ever a cozy place !!! On the beach, old mill looking, just absolutely amazing. Looks like typical Hamptons as I imagine it !!!! And she looks so young !!!
July 10th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
It really didn’t matter if the divorce was public or not the things that came out everyone knew a long time ago.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Just because she is granted “sole” custody doesn’t mean her ex won’t get visitation rights. The two are separate issues. However, if he cared much about those kids he wouldn’t have behaved in such a despicable manner.
Even at their age, I feel these kids should be able to make their own decision as to whether they want to see or spend time with their father based on how he treats them. Children are people with rights and feelings, and are too often used as pawns in divorce cases. If I were a judge allowing visitation, it would have to be supervised. Wouldn’t want him viewing porn or bringing women home and doing other harmful/inappropriate behavior around his children.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Sheila,
who ever said Peter was trying to take the kids from her (like she has from him)?? Why can’t she share joint custody of their children
and like I said before, just because a man cheats on his wife, doesn’t mean he gets his parent card yanked!
I feel sorry for any woman that thinks “my husband cheated on me, that’s why he shouldn’t be allowed any custody of the children” because that’s not grounds to take away the rights of the father.
July 11th, 2008 at 2:33 am
This guy is a hundred times crazy..he was married to CHRISTIE BRINKLEY!!! She is gorgous and he is just an idiot to have cheated continuiusly.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Sheila-
I totally agree with you, espically if my husband did something like Peter.
He CLEARLY has issues. As I mother I too, wouldn’t want him making any parenting decisions, as he has proven his poor judgement with the whole teenage affair, porn addiction, and hush money thing…
That’s not the kind of person I would want as a role model in my daughters life, absolutely NOT!
Maybe they’ll be able to work out an agreement in the future once he gets himself together, but for now I’m on team Brinkley.
July 11th, 2008 at 11:04 am
WWhen even a psychiatrist who has only met the two of them briefly recognizes that Peter Cook is a narcissist that says to me that he really has no business making decisions about the children because everything is about him. I’m sure Christie is angry and bitter about the affair but according to the psychiatrist, she has the ability to put it behind her and move on (with therapy). As the child of a narcissist, I can tell you that they don’t change. Their lives and their decisions need to revolve around themselves and sadly that makes them poor parents.
And as for Christie having issues with co-parenting, she and Billy Joel seem to have gotten along just fine for 22 years raising Alexa.