Those that have spent time mindlessly scrolling through the Daily Mail’s sidebar of shame, may be familiar with the ongoing saga between Premier league footballer Kyle Walker and influencer Lauryn Goodman.
In July last year, His Honour Judge Hess took the highly unusual step of waiving anonymity and published his judgment in a case that involved the influencers financial claims arising from the birth of her two children with the Manchester City defender.
It’s important to remember that Miss Goodman and Mr Walker are not, and never were, married or even cohabitees- indeed he is married to Annie Walker with whom he shares 4 children. As such, there was never any joint assets to be divided following the breakdown of a relationship, nor was Ms Goodman entitled to financial relief as part of divorce proceedings.
For many unmarried parents, child maintenance is the only financial obligation expected of the non-resident parent an parents will turn to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) which handles maintenance cases where the non-resident parent earns less than £156,000 gross annually. However, in cases such as Mr Walker’s, where there is significant wealth involved, the Court has the power to “top up” child maintenance. For context, Kyle Walker’s net worth is £26.7 million and has a gross income in the region of £7-10 million per annum whereas Lauryn Goodman was considered impecunious in that she had no formal paid employment, only a minority share in her mother’s house and significant debt.
Ms Goodman has given media interviews where she has expressed a desire for her own children to have the same standard of living as their half-siblings. As an unmarried mother, the only relevant legislation available to her is under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, which addresses financial provision solely for children. The Act aims to ensure that children receive adequate support and resources, regardless of their parents’ relationship status, particularly in cases where one parent has significant wealth. However, we must emphasise that these applications are for the benefit of the children only. Parents making these sorts of applications should not expect to receive the sort of financial settlement that might have obtained on divorce had they been married to the other parent.
Lauryn Goodman first made a financial application under Schedule 1 back in June 2020, in relation to her first child (Kairo) with Kyle Walker. Those proceedings concluded with significant financial provisions being made for Miss Goodman including;
- Mr Walker being ordered to purchase a property for Miss Goodman and Kairo to occupy, up to a value of £1.85 million within 60 miles of Sussex (notably far away from Kyle and his Wife in Cheshire). This property does not “belong” to Miss Goodman, it is to be returned to Mr Walker upon Kairo completing his education (up to university level) or earlier if Ms Goodman marries or cohabits.
- Child Periodical Payments of £8,000 per month (index linked to increase each March.
- Additional child periodical payments in respect of child-care costs.
- Lump sum towards Mother’s debts and home furnishings
- A new vehicle every 4 years.
Within 48 hours of the birth of her second child, Kinara, Ms Goodman issued a further application for financial relief under Schedule 1. In an attempt to conceal the child’s paternity from his wife, Walker initially agreed to most Miss Goodman’s requests, such as increasing the housing fund to £2.4million provided she remained living within 60 miles of Sussex. However, the claims sought by Miss Goodman increased exponentially and Mr Walker resisted her demands, resulting in court proceedings.
Some of Miss Goodman’s claims were accepted (either by agreement or by order of HHJ Hess) such as;
- Global child maintenance payments of £150,000 per annum (£12,500 per month) until Kairo reaches 18 or finishes full time education, thereafter payments will reduce by 35%.
- Childcare costs at £2,080pcm until; September 2027) and a vehicle for the nanny at a value of £12,000.
- £16,176 in arrears for child maintenance;
- Mr Walker to be responsible for educational expenses.
- £5,000 lump sum payment to decorate and furnish Kinara’s bedroom
- Costs for the installation of CCTV and burglar alarm,
- The discharge of legal fees
However, the majority of Miss Goodman’s claims were rejected by Judge Hess, including;
- Air conditioning at a cost of £33,000 – The Judge did not accept this was necessary for the benefit of the child. “On the fairly small number of days in England when it is very hot, any discomfort can usually be dealt with by closing blinds or curtains and deploying a moderately-priced electric fan”
- Astroturf at a cost of £31,200 –The Judge rejected mother’s claim that 1 year old Kinara’s ability to kick a ball from crawling position meant that she would go on to be a Lioness, he considered this to be an ‘evidential leap’.
- Internal re-modelling to the home (at a cost of £4,000).
- A further furniture fund of £20,000.
- An increase to the existing provision for her car, such that she would receive a replacement Mercedes GLA costing £70,000 every three years.
- Another car for her nanny, costing £30,000, to be replaced every three years.
- Removal of the condition on her housing fund, which stated that if she moved within 100 miles of Kyle’s family home, the £2.4m would be reduced to £1.35m.
HHJ Hess largely preferred Mr Walker’s evidence, labelling him “sensible, honest and reliable”. The Judge stated that
“I think the father was correct to observe that the mother was in many ways treating him as an open-ended cheque book”.
In contrast, the Judge was quite critical of the mother’s “remarkable lack of insight in relation to her own spending” and did take into consideration a previous conviction for benefit fraud.
Ultimately these proceedings are about the children’s needs and that is always the Court’s primary consideration. The Judge accepted Miss Goodman’s more reasonable requests (in context of Mr Walker’s substantial wealth) for expenses that were demonstrably for the legitimate benefit of the children but refused those that were simply a wish list of luxuries. Whilst the sums awarded are indeed eye watering, it is a small fraction of Mr Walker’s overall wealth.
Judge Hess also took the unusual step of waiving anonymity in this case. He took the view that it would have opened the court to ridicule to try prevent the parties from being recognised when their children’s names had already been widely publicised due to Miss Goodman’s own actions – she famously attended Euro 2024 in Germany with ‘Daddy’ emblazoned on the back of her son’s shirt.
In publishing this Judgment, it has given practical insight into the variety and scope of Schedule 1 proceedings. However, those considering these applications should pursue all other avenues before resorting to litigation if they want their private life to remain private, especially now the Family Court’s transparency pilot is in force. As interesting this case is, either from a family law perspective or that of a lay person who simply enjoys celebrity gossip, one cannot help but feel sympathy for Mr Walker’s wife and four children from his marriage, for whom this judgement and the subsequent media publications must make for difficult reading.
Heather Reilly
17th January 2025