I am a little appalled at how many people think that the parent who commits adultery should lose the kids. Under California law, adultery is not a crime, and has no legal consequences. Having sexual relations with whomever you want is a civil liberty, regardless of marital status. Child custody is supposed to be based on the best interest of the child (BIOTCH), not on the personal morals of the parents.
I am not trying to justify adultery here. I am just describing the way the law works. There used to be laws against adultery. California has two BIOTCH exceptions already -- drug abuse and domestic violence -- so maybe there ought to be another for adultery. Or maybe one for internet porn, or for hanging out with a wacky rock star. I am just saying that the family court should follow the provisions of the law. If there is a public consensus that the govt should take kids away from adulturers or internet porn addicts, then pass a law to that effect. Otherwise, internet porn is just another goofy activity that is none of anyone's business.
Brinkley's case seems to have been determined by her hiring a pair of private detectives who spent a year spying on her husband Peter Cook, and on child custody evaluator:
Tuesday a court-appointed psychiatrist said Brinkley should be granted custody. Dr. Stephen Herman said Cook deserved liberal access to the children, but added that both parents were in need of counseling to deal with their personal issues.I think that Herman is way out of line here. Both parents sound a little wacky to me, but their personal issues are their own business. Unless the parents have some psychiatric disorder that is harming the kids, Herman's opinions should be disregarded. He is just an over-opinionated phony.
Herman said that the model needs to examine her taste in men and that Cook is a narcissist with a bottomless ego.