This week I testified in the Brinkley-Cook custody trial as the court-appointed evaluator. Months ago I evaluated the family and made recommendations for custody and visitation. The trial, as you may know, received a great deal of press because of the “high profile” of the litigants. Ms. Brinkley, of course, is a world-class super-model. Her husband, Peter Cook, is a very successful architect. The press has detailed the issues and they will not be discussed in this post. The important aspect of the case is that while one of the parties engaged in some “inappropriate” behavior that led to the end of the marriage, that in and of itself did not preclude plenty of parenting time. Losing custody of one's children is not equivalent to losing parental rights. In the midst of the trial, presided over by a superb judge, the parties reached an agreement. Ms. Brinkley will have full custody, while Mr. Cook will have ample time with their two children.
It was quite an experience for me! There was press everywhere, snapping pictures and rolling video cameras. The courtroom was “open,” filled with reporters. There was even a cartoon in the New York Post - a tabloid newspaper if there ever was one.
When dealing with prominent people in a custody dispute, it is important to act in the same professional capacity as one does in every “normal” case. Some mental health professionals forget this and get caught up in the glare of being with celebrities. I believe I did a good job in keeping my head on straight. As I was court-appointed, I had the advantage of doing an impartial evaluation with no pre-conceived notions. And, by the way, that's the only way a custody study should be conducted. One-sided evaluations have no place in court. They are given little weight, and rightly so.
