Peter Cook, who was demonized by former wife Christie Brinkley in their divorce, gave an interview to Barbara Walters for 20/20, so he could talk about his side. He said:

"I was seeking a connection I could not find in my own marriage. I think the emotional aspect of our lives had changed. I think we were both feeling more like we were living with a brother and sister than a life partner."

"I wanted a little acknowledgment, a little attention, a little thank you every now and then for my efforts, for the amount of time I took to care for her and my family, for the wealth I was building."

Extra received a response from Brinkley’s lawyer that says:

"It is a measure of Peter Cook’s character that he has breached the confidentiality agreement that is in the divorce settlement and has sought to present this distorted one sided view of his marriage. Mr. Cook had his days in court, testified on his own behalf and ultimately agreed with the view of the children’s court appointed attorney and psychiatrist that the children should live principally with their mother and that she should be the sole custodial parent."

The lawyer didn’t deny Cook’s statement. Too bad he signed a confidentiality agreement. He’s probably really itching to write a book to tell his side.

The lesson from all of this is to acknowledge your partner, so they feel like they are an important part of your life, and you care about their happiness. Perhaps Brinkley’s lack of concern for her husband’s emotional well-being is the reason she’s been married and divorced so many times.

Peter Cook says he got what he wanted in the divorce settlement with Christie Brinkley, that he asked for two years ago when the process began. Cook also says he regrets the affair that ended his marriage, and is unhappy that Christie made the trial a public spectacle that embarrassed the children unnecessarily. Cook said he’s moved on with his life. Will the bitter and vindictive ex-wife Christie?

At 6:15 am this morning Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook reached an out-of-court agreement that settled their divorce case. Two detectives were set to testify about information they dug up, including one item posted by Page Six which claimed Cook was a drug dealer in the 1980s.

In the agreement, Brinkley received sole custody of their two children, Jack (13), and Sailor (10), and gets to keep all 18 properties in the Hamptons. She’s agreed to pay Cook $2.1 million. Cook does get "parenting time" in the decision, although Brinkley does have sole decision-making power.

Outside the courtroom today Christie said to the media:

"I can’t really regret my marriage to Peter Cook. Out of this union came Sailor, my beautiful little daughter. It really is the death of a marriage, but it’s also I think a new start for all of us and I’m very pleased with the results today. I was here fighting for custody."

"I think a mother’s greatest fear is somebody trying to take her children, trying to take custody of her children. That’s what I was up against. And so I’ve won custody and decision-making, and that’s really all I ever wanted."

Men’s greatest fear is also having somebody try to take their children away. That’s why custody battles are so viscious. It’s mom against dad. In most cases, even this case, joint custody would have better served the children, except Christie wanted power and control, a sign of an abuser, but she did not want to work with the father of her children. As the psychiatrist said, Christie has huge anger issues. Christie only wanted revenge in this trial, in addition to power and control to torture her now ex husband, of which Cook is number 4.

Some readers might see Christie for what she claims to be, but I see her as an abuser. Christie and Cook are not so different. It’s sad the courts don’t see people for who they really are, and instead of doing what is best for the kids, the courts encourage parents to fight a bloody battle to determine a winner. A prenup is ideal to avoid this kind of trouble, with the other option being to not get married at all. Divorces tear families apart.

Christie Brinkley’s estranged husband, Peter Cook, spent about $3,000 a month on pornographic Web sites, Brinkley’s lawyer, Robert Stephan Cohen, told the court at the start of the couple’s nasty divorce trial today. The lawyer said:

"That is the man who’s come before this court and asked for custody of his 13-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter."

Cook’s lawyer, Norman Sheresky, responded:

"It was wrong and he said it was wrong. He did it and it was wrong, and we said so, and there is no way to make that right. Peter has apologized. He’s cried his eyes out. He’s lost his marriage."

A girl who was 18 years-old, Diana Bianchi, who Cook had an affair with is expected to testify. However, custody, rather than money, is the main issue at the trial. Brinkley’s ownership of her $30 million Bridgehampton home is not being contested.

Cook’s lawyer, Norman Sheresky, said:

"For goodness sake: She’s on her fourth husband. Your honor, we’re here because of the self-indulgent wrath of a woman scorned."

Sheresky said there’s ample evidence that Cook’s a good parent, including interviews in which Brinkley referred to him as "the best dad in the world."

Sheresky quoted Brinkley as saying: "Peter is our rock. He’s the calm in the middle of the storm."

Sheresky also blasted Brinkley for supporting a decision to keep the trial open to the public.

"That’s putting her agenda in front of the best interests of the children. What kind of a mother wants her husband flogged in public?"

The kind that cares more about revenge than the happiness of her children. All the expects who weighed in today agree. Brinkley is getting revenge for all the crap she hasn’t resolved in all her relationships before Cook.

Carri Lyn Ciamarra is scheduled to take the stand to testify in the Christie Brinkley and Peter Cook divorce trail on July 10, but she doesn’t want to. Ciamarra, through her attorney Anthony Mangone, has criticized Brinkley for dragging her into court to testify against Cook. Mangone, says he’s attempting to stop Ciamarra from testifying, because she and Cook did not become close until after he and Brinkley were already legally separated. Mangone said:

"This is nothing more than a jilted woman trying to ruin someone else’s family. We feel her testimony is unnecessary and irrelevant to the current proceedings."

Amen. Ciamarra issued the following statement through her attorney:

"I first came to know Peter Cook in February 2007 after meeting him in New York City. The nature of that relationship is a private matter."

Asked whether Cook and Ciamarra were indeed dating last year, Mangone replied:

"She maintained a very friendly relationship with Peter Cook from February 2007 to August 2007. She’s a private citizen, and it’s not fair to explain what type of relationship it was."

Although Mangone criticized Brinkley, the attorney did not paint her estranged architect husband as an innocent victim. Mangone said:

"He’s got some credibility issues, and I’m not trying to gauge what kind of relationship they had or who decided to end it. The press has done a good job in exposing who he is."

He added that his client has no desire to be used as a pawn in court. Mangone added:

"They might expect her to sit and cower in the courtroom. She’s not going to sit down and die for these people, and it’s a shame she’s being dragged into this mess."

Brinkley asked the judge to keep the trial open for the media to report on. She should have the decency to keep this private, but like Mangone said, Brinkley is a jilted woman out for revenge, and doesn’t care who it hurts, even her kids.