Kyle Walker, a well-known professional footballer famous for his achievements on the football field, is once again making headlines. The focus is on a legal matter involving his former partner, Lauryn Goodman. The legal issue at hand concerns Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.
This recent decision has brought to light significant issues transparency of Family Court decisions and the unreasonable demands often seen by claimants in Schedule 1 cases. The judgement, handed down by His Honour Judge Edward Hess, importantly emphasises the Family Court’s focus on prioritising the welfare of the child amidst complex and widely publicised parental disputes.
What is Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989?
Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 provides a framework for financial support and property arrangements for children whose parents are separate or are not married. Schedule 1 of the 1989 Act allows the court to make orders for education and child maintenance, including periodic payments and lump sums. It also provides a provision for property (in limited circumstances) and other financial needs to ensure the child’s welfare. The Act aims to ensure that children receive adequate support and resources, regardless of their parents’ relationship status.
Background to the case
As is now well known in popular media, Kyle Walker and Lauryn Goodman had an affair which resulted in the birth of their two children. Following the end of their relationship, and within 48 hours of their second child being born, Goodman filed for a financial provision under Schedule 1 Children Act to receive financial support and maintain a standard of living reflective of Walker’s substantial income as a Premier League and international football player. Goodman’s list of demands included £14,750 per month in child maintenance fees, £70,000 towards a new Mercedes GLE every three years, £33,000 for an air conditioning unit (although, understandable in the current heat), a capital fund to be created now for the payment of nursery school fees and several other significant expenses.
Judgment
Goodman’s shopping list was scrutinised by the court with the judge branding Goodman “unreasonable” and “demanding”; nevertheless, she was still granted some of her requests, albeit not in full. Walker was also ordered to cover the housing budget of Goodman’s house, provide a new car every three years at a cost up to £51,000, and £12,500 per month (£150,000 annually) in child maintenance for both children. Additionally, the judge awarded Goodman £5,000 to redecorate her daughter’s bedroom.
The judge noted that while child support should ensure a child’s wellbeing, it must also be reasonable and not be used as a means of leveraging excessive financial gain from the other parent. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining a balance between adequate support and fairness, emphasising that financial claims must be realistic and grounded in the child’s genuine needs.
Transparency in the Family Court
While Goodman’s requests have received significant attention in this case, the central issue that has emerged is the focus on the transparency of Family Court decisions.
At the start of this hearing the judge received requests from the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Press Association to attend and report on the hearing under the family court transparency pilot that was introduced at the Central Family Court in January 2024. The judge permitted accredited journalists to attend the hearing and an interim transparency order was issued so Judge Hess could regulate the scope of their reporting during the proceedings.
In discussing the transparency order, Judge Hess pointed out Goodman’s recent behaviour during the Euros 2024 where she attended with “her son dressed in an England football shirt with the name ‘Daddy’ on the back and [was] willingly photographed doing this to provide journalistic fodder.”
When addressing decision to issue a final transparency order Judge Hess did not want to “interfere with the wishes of the press to publish such material as they wish.” The judge concluded that “the right of the press to scrutinise and comment upon the court’s procedures and decisions, and what the mother has requested of the father and how he has responded, are on this occasion a greater priority.” He added: “It is in my view preferable that anybody interested in the topic should have the opportunity to read the full independent account contained in this judgment before reaching any conclusion about what has happened.”
This decision to allow transparency in the court room can be seen as a crucial move for preserving trust in the Family Court system and ensuring that all parties are held accountable for their actions and decisions.
The content of this article is for general information only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. If you require any further information in relation to this article please contact the author in the first instance. Law covered as at August 2024.