Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook's children are 13 and 10 - should the judge ask them where they want to live?

They are both old enough to have their input heard.

i was 10 when my parnets got divorced. my dad just wanted to entertain us. not real interested in 'raising us'. they go with mom in this case. him first, him second, him was a bad choice. it happens

to ask these children regardless of their age would be horrible to do to them. No child should be asked to pick which parent they love more regardless of the parents actions towards each other. the decision should be made by the judge.

At the ages of 10 and 13 these children do not understand the meaning of "Sex Addict" and what that will mean to them if they chose to live with the father. His addiction will always leave them last and it could definitely color their attitudes towards themselves. The father, even without purposely doing so, would affect their self-esteem with his values. It seems he has already affected some of the children with his values. This father is sick and needs help and these children are way too young to understand this addiction.

It is unfair to ask a child to chose one parent over the other. There are some decisions that a child should have the peace of mind knowing will be made for them with their best interest in mind. Children are not equipt to make adult decisions nor should they. The psychiatrist has said they are better off with their mother. case closed.

The 13 year old should be able to have input, the 10 year old is to young and although the judge could talk to both, their input should have minimal weight in the judges decision.

The judge should talk to the children. He should not ask them to choose one over the other but listen to thier thoughts without putting them on the spot. K Allen

If kids were age 14 or more, I would say maybe they should be asked where they want to live. Given their tender age(s) and the fact that their Dad has "inadvertently" exposed them to pornography already, they should stay with their Mom.

The judge or the guardian ad litem should certainly determine what the children's preferences are. However, ultimately the decision must be made based on the best interests of the children.

I am very surprised the number of yes votes? I was a child of a divorced family back in the early seventies and a divorce on kids is hard enough without: A) Being asked to chose and fearing hurting either parent - and - B) Children do not and should not be expected to decide who is better qualified to raise them and consider what is best for them.

The Judge can ask, but that doesn't mean he/she has to do what they want. Sometimes what children want isn't what's best for them. In this case, the father is a cad - immoral, a narcissistic and an adulterer. No role model for his children. Christy needs to concentrate on her children and forget finding another man. She is not good at choosing good husbands and fathers for her children.

I think that the judge should ask the children where they want to live...I think that the children most likely will want to live with their Mom. It seems that she is a more stable parent as far as "keeping the family unit intact". What Peter Cook was doing-as far as his infidelity and use of internet pornography, is not responsible conduct. All that money and time spent away from his kids tells me that he didn't spend that much time with the children...I am sure that they would want to be with their Mom. It seems that she is more "hands on" and involved with their rearing.

Cook obviously doesn't care about his children because he is constantly exposing Chrisy to STD's that could cost her her life and the children their mother.

I think it is wrong to put children in the position of choosing one parent over the other. They have been traumatized enough by the event itself, not to mention all of the media blitz. The judge should be able to determine from the evidence which parent can provide a more suitable environment in which these children can recover and thrive.

The sperm donor's actions speak for themselves. A true father would not do that to his family.

Most children will go with the parent that will give them more freedom and the "bag of candy" so to speak, not necessarily the parent who will give them the proper upbringing. Of course, judges don't always make the right decision. Either way, the children pay the price and it will last a lifetime - so very sad.

THE DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURTS UNDULY FAVOR MOTHERS OVER FATHERS IN CUSTODY AWARDS. IT APPEARS THE BRINKLEY COURT WILL LIKELY DO THE SAME. ANOTHER INJUSTICE APPEARS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THIS COURT AND THE MINOR CHILDREN WILL SOON BE WITHOUT A FULL TIME DAD. THE COURT SHOULD AWARD JOINT CUSTODY OF THE MINOR CHILDREN. THIS WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINOR CHILDREN AND KEEP THE DAD ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THEIR UPBRINGING.

Absolutely not! It would not be right to put those kids in a position where they must choose which parent they want to live with. From experience, I know how devastating that can be. That big mess is not their fault, but emotionally they would pay a bigger price than they already will. Generally, kids love both parents and don't want to hurt or anger them. It will make them feel guilty, like they have betrayed their parents. It will take a long enough time for them to come to terms with the divorce without putting them in the position of having to choose.

Absolutely. The judge should interview the children and exercise his discretion about how to evalutate their testimony.

THE KIDS ARE TOO YOUNG AND THE COURTS HAVE TOO MUCH POWER OVER THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE. wHERE ARE THE ELDERS. A 10 YEAR OLD DECIDING HUGE EVENTS IN A YOUNG LIFE? baaaaa

Children will ultimately make the decision with their feet. You really can't keep a kid where they don't want to be.

The wisdom of the judicial system needs to prevail when there is clear evidence of abuse of any nature especially sexual deviation. It is a common known sad fact that porn addiction is difficult to break and it could endanger the children. This alters everything.

No - if he is truly a narcissist, his personality disorder can be both charming and intimidating to his children. Maybe they could choose after a bit of family therapy, but not until they've had time to separate from his personality disorder.

Normally, I would say that they should have input, however, in this case, the father's fitness has been called into question. The safety of the children must be foremost in the judge's mind as the question of custody is considered.

When my parents divorced, they asked me this question. I felt like I had to choose between my parents. I think it is unfair to the children. The psychiatrist has already determined that the father is not fit. Let the mother have the children and give the father liberal visitation. Do not make the children make a choice that is bound to bring pain to one of their parents. It is not fair to the children.

I think their input should be taken into consideration but not for the final decision.

Are we forgetting these children are Children. How hard would it be for either of them to get up on stand in front of both parents who they love and decide where to live.

I think their input should be taken into consideration but not for the final decision.

No judge should award custody of any child to a parent whom spends their time engaging in sexually perverted fantasies from porno magazines, websites, and prostitutes. For the sake of survival, a society has an obligation to prevent its children from exposure to such immoral activity. Peter Cook's actions speak louder than his words. He is a sexually addicted narcisis with a serious psycological problem. He has spent his time helping himself rather than the children. We don't need any "cook's" watching our children!

Look, don't ask the kids. Let them go with Christie, clearly the more stable parent. Not only that, the ONLY reason this guy is asking for custody is because he wants child support. It's all about the money.

A father who spends that much time on the internet porn sites, doesn't have much time left for "real life" activities with children. Porn, trists, sleeping with the secretary.......what a great example to children. This is a sex addict and shouldn't be anywhere near children. I don't know why more people aren't outraged. This is one sick bas............!!!!

How can the judge possibly know the children well enough to ask their preference? If they have been spoiled, chances are they would want to live with the parent who is the most lenient. He should not ask their preference. That's why they call him a "judge."

They're are alot of ways of asking the question without coming right out and asking who do you want to live with, the judge should sit down with the kids, have a friendly conversation and in a round about way he can get the answers he's looking for.

I am a school teacher where custody battles play out in "real life". Children will even change their minds if one parent does not "suit their needs". Children need one "base" with the mother. It is so confusing when joint custody is introduced. Do they have that in their state? Joint custody should be against the law. Some children come in this world equipped to go through these problems. Here's hoping these two will gain strength for what comes "next".

No child should be asked to choose between their parents. The emotional trauma could last forever. If they were both over 16 --- okay. Let the court decide, based on the evidence presented.

Even though he cheated on his wife, that doesn't exactly make him a bad father. Romantic relationships and parental relationships are very different from each other. This woman has now been divorced 4 times, so it's obvious that she either has lousy judgment, or is a terrible wife (when it comes to romantic relationships). This doesn't at all represent her parental abilities, so why should this relationship represent the father's? I'm tired of hearing about this, it shouldn't even be an issue. The parents should have joint custody, and the fighting needs to stop. It's not healthy for the children, or the parents. Christie wanted this to be public, and she wanted to tarnish her husband's reputation for cheating on her, and that doesn't at all represent the actions of somebody stable.

The children should not be put in that situation. Maybe after everyone has had therapy and more on an even keel. I divorced my husband when our children were 3 & 6 yrs old.......he did his best to influence the kids over the years with negativity. I wouldn't say negative things about their dad and allowed them to decide what their dad was about, my kids are now grown and have very little to do with him. As children get older they are able to know which parent wants them to be the happiest and has their best interest at heart. A father who will allow their child to be exposed to porn really has some major issues that he needs to deal with without the children being around......

Wrong question. Too many judges make this mistake. I do not know if it is due to ignorance, or maybe the judge applying "cya". "hey the kid said they wanted to live with..." The question should not be "who do you want to live with?" This brings in all kinds of psychological issues that even with hours of testimony, an insightful judge could only begin to understand. A 10, or even 13 year old child is not capable of determining which parent will be the more positive influence to shape the foundation of the rest of their life. Judges should ask the children questions like, "do you feel you can trust your father, your mother? And then not forget the follow up question - why, or why not? Ask questions like, does your father listen to you? Does you mother listen to you? Why do you think so or don't think so? ... The judge should ask questions which will provide insight into the kind of person and parent each individual is and then factor that input into other court room testimony. The judge should then step up to the plate and earn what they are paid to do, make the decision - not defer to the child, "who do you want to live with?" I filed for custody of my 10 year old daughter. The civil master found grounds to change custody, but asked my 10 year old daughter that question, "who do you want to live with?" All the reasons and more that justified the change in custody were set aside due to the answer my daughter gave. All those reasons remained in the mother's personality traits and household. Our daughter before 16 became depressed and suicidal and at that time then came to live with me who worked to put the pieces back together. Her education was salvaged, her life was saved, and she now is 20. But she has issues and baggage in her life which she would not have had, if that civil master had more sense then to ask the simple question, "who do you want to live with? A child can be so much more as an adult, if given the support, dedication, and sincere love while a child, by a responsible parent, and not simply a parent of choice.