TODAY’S PAPER | September 24, 2025 | EPAPER

Dawson’s Creek reunion: James Van Der Beek’s wife reacts after missing event due to illness

James Van Der Beek’s wife Kimberly shares heartfelt message after missing Dawson’s Creek reunion due to illness.


Pop Culture & Art September 24, 2025 1 min read

James Van Der Beek’s wife, Kimberly Van Der Beek, shared an emotional message after missing the Dawson’s Creek reunion event due to illness.

Kimberly, 43, is currently battling colorectal cancer and was unable to attend the charity reunion organized with F Cancer on September 22.

In a video posted to her Instagram Story, Kimberly reflected on the evening and praised those who helped make it possible. She credited Michelle Williams for spearheading the event, calling it “such a gift,” and expressed gratitude to Williams’ husband, director Thomas Kail, for creating special experiences for their children during the trip.

Kimberly described the cast’s support as “beyond words,” thanking director Jason Moore and series creator Kevin Williamson for their contributions. She also shared personal anecdotes, noting that Mary-Margaret Humes, who played Gail Leery on the show, still sends James cookies for his birthday each year. Kimberly added that Michelle Williams went out of her way to make the family comfortable, even putting flowers in every room and changing hotel linens.

Calling the cast “amazing,” Kimberly said the night was meaningful not only for her family but also for seeing the outpouring of love for her husband. “It was a beautiful night, and I miss my husband. I can’t wait to go see him tomorrow,” she said.

Although James Van Der Beek was unable to attend in person, he made a surprise video appearance during the event. Kimberly and the couple’s six children — Olivia, Joshua, Annabel, Emilia, Gwendolyn, and Jeremiah — joined the cast on stage to sing, adding a special family moment to the evening.

 

 

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ