Christie Brinkley’s Divorce: Vengeance First, Kids Last

by Glenn Sacks on June 25, 2008

in Gender Issues

For Christie Brinkley (pictured), apparently her anger at her husband is far more important than the welfare of her kids. Whereas most stars want their divorces private, she’s fighting to keep it as public as possible.

To be fair, it sounds like Brinkley certainly had reason to be mad at soon-to-be-ex-husband Peter Cook over his infidelities and the harm he caused to their marriage. But having now married and divorced four separate times, it’s doubtful that Brinkley is going to be giving lectures on “Why It’s Important to Make Your Marriage Work” or “How to Be a Good Wife” any time soon.

(BTW, we do apply that both ways. When we’re contacted by a man who wants to convince us what a bitch each one of his four ex-wives was, we don’t put much stock in it.)

The key issue here, though, is the children. They have a nine-year-old daughter together, and Brinkley’s 12-year-old son from her 3rd marriage also lives with them. Despite this, Brinkley seems determined to thrust this divorce into the spotlight as much as possible. From MSNBC’s Are Christie Brinkley’s kids pawns in her divorce? (6/24/08):

Christie Brinkley is pursuing Brinkley-style brinkmanship by fighting to keep her messy divorce proceedings public, a celebrity divorce lawyer and a psychologist agreed.

“They’re playing a dangerous game of chicken with her children’s lives,” attorney Lois Lieberman told TODAY’s Meredith Vieira Tuesday in New York.

The 54-year-old supermodel filed for divorce nearly two years ago, citing an affair her fourth husband, architect Peter Cook, 49, admitted having with his 18-year-old office assistant. The couple have one child together, 9-year-old Sailor. Also part of the family is Brinkley’s son, Jack, 12, from her third marriage.

An attorney appointed to represent the interests of the children joined with Cook’s attorney to keep the divorce trial, scheduled to begin July 2, private to protect the children. But Brinkley and Long Island newspaper Newsday asked to keep the trial public, and the judge agreed.

Lieberman told Vieira that it seems clear that Brinkley is trying to force Cook to settle on her terms rather than face the prospect of having his dirty laundry aired in public. In addition to the affair with his assistant, there have been allegations linking him to Internet porn and swingers’ groups.

A woman scorned?

Lieberman also feels Brinkley wants to get back at Cook for his infidelity to her.

“I truly believe that there is some vindictive measure that is part of this aspect of looking for the trial to be public,” the attorney said.

She said Brinkley’s motion to keep the trial public runs counter to normal procedure in celebrity divorces. Usually, she said, both parties try to keep proceedings private to protect their own reputations and their children.

In this case, many of the tawdry details have already been splattered all over the New York tabloids, and the children’s pictures have been published frequently. The couple live in the Hamptons, a Long Island retreat of the rich and famous and a small community in which everyone knows everyone else’s business.

Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com

[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]

{ 7 comments }

1 Ron Coleman June 25, 2008 at 6:07 pm

As you know, Glenn, this goes on all the time.  Vengeance is Job One.

Ron Coleman’s last blog post..Past Present Future

2 Dishman June 26, 2008 at 2:04 am

"Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone."

- Billy Joel

3 jodyneel June 26, 2008 at 7:06 am

I didn’t realize she was 54.

jodyneel’s last blog post..Easily the most disturbing thing I’ve seen

4 Boyd June 26, 2008 at 12:34 pm

It’s not just Brinkley’s motivations and rationales that matter. Apparently, she supported her position to a sufficient degree that the judge agreed with her.

And somehow I don’t think she argued for openness "so I can make that bastard pay!"

Boyd’s last blog post..Music and me

5 Inv A. DeSoda June 26, 2008 at 5:18 pm

I’m not sure how I feel about this. 

You could argue the following:
- It will be well-known to the children regardless of how "public" it is.

- Making it public protects her reputation by letting the world know it is her husband’s fault.

- According to the article, the tawdry details are very public already (although this is the first I’ve heard of it)

- If this forces the husband to settle quickly as the article implies (although for that to work, he would need to have some sense of shame), then the damage to the children caused by drawing out the proceedings can be minimized.

I’m not sure if that case holds up, as I said, I am not sure how I feel about it.

Inv A. DeSoda’s last blog post..The Assassination Smear 2

6 jrogge June 27, 2008 at 7:07 am

Yes but are the scars left upon her children as big as the ones behind her ears? Hooahhh!

Christie Brinkley’s career has been kind of sedate as of late. A public debacle out to get her a few more posthumous photo shoots. I am sure a sex video would get her her own reality show!

7 Ron Coleman July 2, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Here’s an update, if anyone should happen to stumble their way back here!

Ron Coleman’s last blog post..Massively cool, and right-wingy too

Comments on this entry are closed.

Roku.com-The Little Black Box That Streams Thousands of Films! WordPress MU, WPMU and BuddyPress plugins, themes and support at WPMU DEV Thesis Theme for WordPress:  Options Galore and a Helpful Support Community
traffic stats