Christie Brinkley: Not My American Sweetheart
I don't watch an awful lot of television, but I am addicted to the gossip websites, and I've read with dismay about the Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook trial, and caught a brief interview with her after a court appearance the other day.
Does anyone else think that what she's doing is appalling?
Trawling round the blogs it seems most people applaud her for going public. She is, after all, America's sweetheart, golden and perfect, always smiling. She looks so fresh and clean, how dare he soil her with cheap mistresses (who actually turned out to be rather expensive), and porn. Porn for heaven's sake! Shock horror! Go get 'im, is their advice, and then one woman wrote Christie Brinkley had a wonderful lawyer, who had represented this woman in her own divorce, and who she refers to as her pet doberman.
It makes me shiver with horror.
There are children involved here. Small children, and whilst Ms Brinkley may say that her children are in camp and are therefore unaware of the tribulations of the trial, ugly messy divorces with each partner trying to paint the other as a monster, suffer fallout for years, and the people who are hurt most are invariably the children, who can well detect the hate and resentment simmering under the surface when they're transitioning from parent to parent.
I am divorced, and one of the things I am tremendously grateful for is that my ex-husband and I made a decision to go through mediation. I knew a trial would drag on for years, would cost me everything, but worse, would be devastating for our four small children. We were not friends, and he hated me for having the temerity to leave him. There were times in mediation when I wanted to scream with frustration, and it ended up costing me everything anyway, but I have always been financially independent, and I looked upon it as the price of my freedom. (my only words of warning for anyone considering mediation is that the stronger, bullying partner will always get more)
But even when the frustration and fury became too much to bear, I didn't have a rottweiler lawyer (I prefer rottweiler, given that I have a pet doberman who's largely 120lb of pure mush) fanning the flames of anger. I didn't have someone pushing me to reveal all the secrets and lies. I didn't have someone turning me into the worst possible person I could be. A person we all have the capacity to be, but a person I consciously chose not to be for the sake of the children.
Two years on my children are happy. They were protected from the pain, and protected from having to see their parents depicted as awful human beings. They are happy with their father, and happy with me. When they ask about their father, I talk about him with respect and kindness, and they have never, ever, heard me talk about him to friends in front of them.
Christie Brinkley may think her kids are protected, but I can assure her, they are not. They will come back to school with all the friends who will have followed every word, because who, after all, is not fascinated by sordid tales of celebrities, and not just celebrities, but celebrities who have kids in their class!
Peter Cook's story isn't a great one, but I've heard worse. So he had an affair and paid her off. So he trawled porn sites. So he had a secret life that Christie Brinkley knew nothing about, wasn't the perfect husband he appeared to be. So what? Is her humiliation really so great that she has to have this kind of revenge?
I'm not buying her golden smile and protestations that she's exhausted. She brought this upon herself. And her children. And I think when it's his turn to take the stand, she may have a glimmer of wishing she hadn't asked for their dirty laundry to be aired for everyone to examine in minute detail.
Such a shame, I think to myself. It would have been so much better for everyone to put the children first, and to agree the terms of her divorce behind the scenes. She would have been seen as graciously moving on with her life.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Pahlease...There is no reason on earth that this very private and painful matter had to be tried in the court of public opinion. The repercussions of knowing these sordid details will be something for these kids to deal with for a very long time.
While Cook's behavior is reprehensible, Brinkley's choice to go public with the case is inexcusable and was entirely irrelevant to the court proceedings. The court makes its rulings based on the facts and the law and the "best interests of the children" and not based on salacious commentary.
And, while far from perfect, the courts aim to review the facts impartially and make legal determinations likely to create the greatest sense of peace possible for the children, whether in the public domain or not.
Frankly, I find it suspicious that the settlement came after Brinkley publicly trashed her husband but before he had the opportunity to tarnish her image in any way.
Whatever the case, this is a family tragedy for all involved. I too question her judgment in going public in the way she did. It can only have casued harm to her children while doing nothing to help her cause or case.
See James Boyce's Profile
Jane:
If you took even a rudimentary look at the facts of the recently concluded custody hearing, you would discover three things.
First, the pre-nup that Peter Cook signed held up in court so despite the fact that the children have been living with Christie, he filed for full custody - not joint custody FULL custody.
Second, in the state of New York, when a media outlet petitions a custody hearing to be open, legally, it has to be, it was the media's request that caused it to be public.
Third, when $2.1 million was offered to Peter, guess what? He took it and ran. And dropped his custody claims.
Christie is one of the best mothers I know.
As a mother yourself, and someone who has seen worse, I am sure you will appreciate the fact that the blame should go not to the person with the money, but the person digging for it, and using his children as tools to dig with.
James Boyce
I don't know anything about this story, and usually I don't respond to this sort of a blog post, but I found the tone of this to be patronizing, judgmental, harsh and ignoble. Why does this writer think it's fine to judge someone else's pain and how they respond to it? Because she handled it differently... and in her mind, better? I found the tone of righteous moral outrage offensive. If indeed it's all about the children, then in what way are you adding a positive note to this sad and sorry display of human suffering? Sometimes people behave poorly... but you would be much better off judging harshly elected members of our government who have earned your disdain than you are in sanctimoniously judging people trying to live through a horrible and public divorce.
I , too, was duped by a man with a mid life crisis hangup after twenty five years of marriage. My son was abandoned by his father in order that he live his fantasies,,,,trust me he hurt his kids and me to the core. Men can do terrible things (a line from Something Corporate's Cabanaugh Park)... I am going through mediation as well, but still feel that CB is doing the right thing. I forgave my reprehesible ex and moved on. It took four hard years to heal my son and get him back on the right path. Trust me, it doesn't matter whether the trial is public or mediation is private. The children will suffer, the children will know. It's about how the mom takes care of their fragile psyches in the ensuing years as to whether they will come out of it with a relatively healthy self esteem. It's really all about the mom........Dads are superfluous, depending how mom's handle the messiness.
Yes, not only does she deserve revenge but Christie, nor any woman should be obligated to cover up and make excuses for the messes created by their husband(s) "for the sake of the children." Christie's only obligation is to make the "truth" of the situation as painless as possible for her children which she's tried to do. At the time of the scandal she took the children to Colorado, to a mountain with no t.v. or internet access. During this trial she's sent them to summer camp. I think Christie has been a perfectly responsible mother, while Peter Cook’s ambition is to stay in the lifestyle to which he's become accustomed to; and because of the prenup he signed, the only way to that goal is literally through the children. I just read on Huffington that he case has been settled for something like $2.5 million with full custody to Christie Brinkley. Peter Cook got what he really wanted and ultimately so did Christie. Christie did the right thing.
No Christie didn't do anything "appalling."
Her husband.....age 50-----had sex with a teenage girl and then paid her $300,000 in hush money. To me, that is appalling.
And her husband still walks away with a large settlement of money.
This is typical misogynistic blame the woman claptrap. Obviously what you are saying is that if the man has an affair with a child that it's the woman's fault. And she should act fake about it and hide it from the children, so that they won't know anything sordid. All that does is perpetuate the patriarchy and shield the children when they would be better off informed. Any time you lie and hide things all you do is perpetuate the dysfunction. Any psychiatrist can tell you that bad stuff grows in the dark. We would all be much healthier if everything, good and bad, was just out there in the open. No censorship.
The american divorce system rewards confrontation and demonization. It breeds hatred. The author is absolutely correct in her perseption.
The comments on this page attest to the success of Brinley's lawyers strategy: we all "know" the guy's a creep and doesn't deserve custody because he didn't treet Brinkley right, regardless of what his relationship to his children might be. How insane.
There's got to be a better way of ending marriage then this. Perhaps if it were as hard to get married as it is to get divorced we'd deal with it more responsibly.
I have heard that in New York it is REQUIRED that divorces of this sort be public. I don't live in New York state, but if this is so, what choice did Christie Brinkley have?
Too many words.
Run more photos.
Of Brinkley.
Why do I bother?
here's another Peter Cook story for ya...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qPIfm1_Qk44
Get real. Closed door trial would have still leaked with his sleazy lawyer and her sleazy lawyer leaking details to spin public opinion. The kids are already saddled with Christie, so I think they're already screwed up. Besides, some women kill their cheating husbands. A public trial is a bit better than that, don't you think?
Jane, you said you always spoke about your husband to your children with kindness. Your words about him are not so kind in this blog. I don't know how old your children are now, but the written word has a way of getting back to kids.
Self-rigtheous, yes. Too hard on Christie and too easy on Peter (an appropriate name for him now that I think about it), yes.
I'm saddened by how hard women can be on other women. And the myth of "hell having no fury like a woman scorned" is beyond ignorant in a world where men routinely stalk, maim and kill women who leave them.
First her words were not harsh to her ex husband. Second lady the reason why she is critical is cause of the KIDS. The KIDS LADY. I dont give a damn how much she thinks she is hurt, do this behind close doors. Then you would not have to worry about people judging you. Far too many women are talking about christie and not about the kids. What the HELL is wrong with you. We get it the husband was wrong but i shouldnt know about it. I dont want to know about their life, but now that i do I think she is trash. You put you r kids first and this is not putting them first or tenth for that matter. geez.
This part of the dispute is largely a matter of child custody, and while for most--including the author of this article--it would seem to be counter-intuitive to claim that a custody dispute is better conducted in public as opposed to a closed-door trial, I am here to tell you that sometimes it is indeed better for all concerned, including and especially the kids, to have it done publicly.
This is absolutely one of the dumbest things I have ever heard and cant possibly come from someone whose parents were divorce. The kids are already crushed their parents are splitting up. How missmary idiot is this good for the kids. The kids dont want to hear this crap. And definitely dont want to hear this from their friends. Women (atleast some) always seem to want kids to choose sides. Why? What happen to keeping your children out the public eye. I really cant stand Ms Brinkley. Some women are so bitter.
I think she should expose him, the more the merrier. After all, he didn't mind her suffering and couldn't do her child care right because she had to live with this monster. Is he a bigger monster then other males out there who do the same thing,? NO. but he got caught . And to say she should shut up to protect the kids is ludacris. He is trying to take from those same kids every penny he can get. Go for it Christy. He deserves is. And how about her teen daughter from Joel? Can he be trusted with her? Not on your fricking life. He should never be able to lay eyes on her, and I Think Joes agrees with me there.
So quit whining and exposte this monster.
I guess that other than myself believes that Ms. Brinkley is being horrible
to her young children. This is worst than her husband's adultery.
She actually asked for a public trial. I hope nobody hires that lawyer
again that is bad advice.
Her children will hate her when they get older. Why would
anyone with simple common sense want this to be public.
Cheating is a dime a dozen.This is no big surprise. I would
have thought that her children would be more important
than getting back at her ex husband. Children are fragile
creatures who needs stable homes . This decision is
not stable.
Good parents try to find good elements in exes even if they
are not there. It is the child's job to find true character later
when they are old enough to handle any situation.
Umm, courts are public in the United States. That is the norm.
Cook was trying to bully her into joint custody, which would entitle him to child support, a tidy sum for him.
I've tried divorce cases, and the thoughtful, considerate spouse who tries to do the decent thing gets screwed. The attributes which make one a good spouse and parent are not the attibutes which win marital wars.
In this case, the kids were used by Cook to try to extort money out of Brinkley. She had to prove that he was unworthy of custody. It had to be done publicly to get him to settle.
No one can judge Brinkley until they walk in her shoes, or her lawyer's shoes.
I agree. When my husband was 50 years old, he "fell in love" with a beautiful 15 year old girl. They didn't have sex but he was infatuated with her......even though I tried to be the beautiful perfect wife for him.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
