twitter facebook stumble upon rss

Brinkley Gets Ugly in Divorce Battle

sign up for the momlogic newsletter Tweet This

Guest Blogger DivorceWithDignity says: By choosing to make her divorce public, Christie Brinkley is damaging her children's future.

christiebrinkleypetercooksailor.jpg

As America is glued to the Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook divorceĀ proceedings, it's like they're watching a reality show. Cook says nannies raise the kids and that they watched porn together, while Brinkley and her lawyers have dragged his Internet porn obsession and preference for barely legal beauties into the spotlight. While it may seem like primetime entertainment, it hits close to home for me and my very painful split. I myself am a mother who went though a divorce with a man who behaved badly.

The major difference is, unlike Christie Brinkley, I didn't want to expose my children to the dark side of my husband's character or the hideousness of a messy divorce for a monetary gain or for sole child custody. By deciding to make her divorce public and creating the ensuing media frenzy, Brinkley has put her "woman scorned" status ahead of her children's well-being.

Her goal, it seems, is to humiliate her husband for his wrongs--and she has a lot to work with--and not protect her children. Does she really think Cook is a bad father? I don't think so, but in order to get back at him, she seems quite willing to use her children as pawns in her own ugly game. In my book, Cook, porn addictions and all, is severely flawed--but he's still their father. And the kids will always love him.

By trying to expose Cook for who he is, Brinkley has managed to expose herself as the less competent parent. What kind of example is she setting for her kids by publicly airing her dirty laundry across 500 channels 24/7?

For the sake of her children, I wish Christie would follow my own mother's advice. She would say, "Be a lady, bow out gracefully, and be a mother to your children."


next: 5 Moms Lose 1,000 Pounds!
14 comments so far | Post a comment now
Hamptie July 9, 2008, 10:21 AM

Peter Cook did not lobby for a closed trial for the protection of his kids—he did it to save his own reputation.

It probably didn’t need to be public, but ultimately it’s important for his little girl to understand that her daddy does not respect women and has an unhealthy appetite for teenager girls. She needs to know better than to bring her friends around when the time comes.

Cook is obviously the loser in this deal. I hope the court’s orders reflect that. He’s not trying to get money out of her, is he?

RobinStratren July 9, 2008, 12:32 PM

How can you blame her for not wanting to expose this slime bucket of a husband of hers? Should he just be able to get away with it all. the cheating the porn and walk away as if nothing has happened??? He should pay by money and reputation.

Joan July 9, 2008, 12:46 PM

But what about the children? aren’t they more important than whether or not he “gets away with it?” what is it like for them having people start wherever they go? what will it be like for them to go back to school in the fall with all this dirty laundry out in the open?

Joseph July 9, 2008, 1:23 PM

What man does not like porn? why was Peter having an affair? could it be Christie was not satisfying her man?

Regardless Peter has lost already and dragging his name in the public makes her look like terrible because a mother should always protect her kids. Imagine if some school friend of the kids mentions this case to them…how will it affect them?

The man has suffered and has lost everything and as a father I would sacrifice money for the love of my children anytime. He deserves to have 50/50 custody because he did not fail as a parent but failed as a husband.

Its easy for a woman to point out the negative but why not try to figure why it got to this point.

Anonymous July 9, 2008, 1:25 PM

Robin,
“get away with it”? — exposing him to the public is revenge… not parenting. There’s a reason she’s been married so many times.

Elvis Wong July 9, 2008, 1:39 PM

I totally agree with Joseph.
Porn is the awesome!

calimom+3 July 9, 2008, 3:28 PM

Gotta love your kids more than you hate the ex!

Anon July 9, 2008, 6:28 PM

He’s a scumbag

Anon July 10, 2008, 8:39 AM

There are many, many marriages like this one that go down. She discovered he was cheating on her and that’s the basis of the story. Their sexual preferences are really not that interesting to most of us out here. Most men love porn and most women don’t.
These two are public figures unlike most of us out here who aren’t. Their situation shows that there’s “nuthin new under the sun”. Just more celebrity smut…so who really cares about the parents??? The children will survive quite well…I was in THE SAME situation years ago …the children are just fine.

Annon July 10, 2008, 8:50 AM

I agree with the post who said thier daughter needed to watch out and be concerned when she brought her friends around. Maybe this is what Brinkley is thinking about!! I am raising a tween girl now I know I would be concerned. He is seeing them way too young.

Hamptie July 10, 2008, 10:26 AM

Joseph - It seems he married her for what her name could do for him in the first place. He had a 19-year-old girlfriend at the time he announced his engagement to Brinkley. I doubt marital fidelity was ever a high priority and I doubt that had anything to do with Christie’s ability to satisfy him.

deeincanada July 10, 2008, 11:37 AM

Why is it always the mothers responsibility. You say bow down gracefully and be a mother to your children. No I disagree why keep it hidden hes a scumbag and I’m sick and tired of men getting away with everything. Its a man’s world, and then the mothers are left to raise the kids because they can’t keep their **** out of their pants.

ella July 10, 2008, 1:22 PM

I don’t think she needed to close the case. Its the truth. The guy is a jerk! And for people who suggest she wasn’t satisfying her man, that is just rude. Its not our business what their sex life was… and what it was like or wasn’t like isn’t a good excuse for infidelity and an addiction to porn. That is a cop out and there is too much of these lame “excuses” these days. No one takes responisibility for their own actions.
He doesn’t deserve the kids, she does. She may have bad taste in men, but the bad opinions of her are unwarranted.

jenni July 20, 2008, 9:08 PM

children under no circumstances should be exposed to any behaviour of this sort. there is absolutly no benefit to it except confusing your kids and belittling yourself and husband…soon 2 be ex…he will always be their father and what we do in our personal time is our business, no one else’s & definitly not kids!


Back to top >>
advertisement