Lawyer: Brinkley Wants Cook In Kids' Lives

Says That She Is Not Denying Cook Right To See Children, But Wants Them To Live With Her

(CBS)  The divorce proceedings between Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook continued Monday, with the couple fighting over custody of their daughter Sailor, 9, and son Jack, 13.

Cook's attorney, Norman Sheresky, told The Early Show that he believes Brinkley and Cook were once good co-parents, but that she now she wants to push him out of the children's lives. Brinkley's attorney, Robert Cohen, said that's not true.
Sheresky believes that Cook will have no problem establishing that he's been a good father.

---

Photos: Celebrity Splits

---

"We have nine or ten years of Christie Brinkley telling everybody who would listen to what a great husband he was," Sheresky said. "And he was. We have cards and letters from Christie Brinkley telling him what a great husband he was. Articles in virtually every magazine about what a great father he was. I don't think it's going to be very hard to prove the truth. He was a terrific father."

According to Sheresky, Brinkley and Cook were "terrific co-parents," and in an ideal world they should continue to bring up the children together.

"What happened is Christie got real mad and she doesn't want to co-parent anymore. Even if it means her children don't have two parents, that's okay by her. It's cruel and it's silly," he said.

Sheresky said that the trial shouldn't have been made open to the public.

"I don't know any good parent in the world who would invite their children to sit in the courtroom, which is precisely what Christie has done," he said.

Cohen said the open courtroom is a non-issue.

"What Peter Cook has wanted to do here was spread rumors and false statements and by innuendo try the case outside the courtroom and into - in the media," Cohen said. "Frankly, we didn't seek to declare the court open - courts are open. They are open. All custody cases are open. So that's not an issue. Frankly, it's another smokescreen created by Peter Cook."

Cohen did not deny that Brinkley is angry, noting "every spouse in a situation like this is angry."

But, Cohen said, Cook has seen the children "as well he should" during their court-arranged visitation schedule since the couple separated in July 2006, and that he will continue to see them according to the schedule.

"He was a perfectly fine dad. But the fact is he's exercised incredibly bad judgment. We're not saying he doesn't have access. We're not saying he shouldn't see the children. The question is should they be shuttling back and forth during the week or should they be at their mom's house as they have been principally the last two years under a court-arranged schedule."

[midaddy]

This another high profile New York area divorce with the mother looking to knock down a man that adopted children who where now his. Not to say Mr. Cook did not have his faults, but the issue of the custody of the children is the reason for the fight in public. The New York and Michigan legislatures have Joint Physical Custody bills introduced. The bills have opposition because in this one Ms. Brinkley decided against a closed divorce hearing. Ms. Brinkley working on her four weddings and four divorces must be also deciding to continue the Liz Taylor tradition of marriage and divorce. In this country the vows of marriage are not recognized as solemn as to God. We take those vows lightly and as a nation pay $112 billion dollars a year for divorce and unwed births. This state is according to the Institute of American Values report. If Joint Custody laws where more of the rule of law we would have this fight to destroy a man or woman in the public. According to the attorney for Mr. Cook, his wife use to say that he was a good father. You have to look at Ms. Brinkley%u2019s four other marriages and what happened to wonder why does she keep repeating the same cycle and destroying children and men in the process? Perhaps she should pray that God changes her enough to receive a good husband or take the time to find who she is before she commits this mistake again.