The Lauren Goodman v Kyle Walker Case & Schedule 1 Children Act Claims.

The case of Goodman v. Walker [2024] EWFC 212 (B) heard at the Central Family Court by HHJ Hess offers an interesting insight to claims by Parents for child maintenance / financial provision. This case has hit the headlines due to the father’s celebrity status as a professional footballer for Manchester City FC & England. Mr Walker is also the Husband of Annie Kilner.

Rights of Cohabitees vs. Married Couples

Cohabitees, regardless of the duration of their relationship, do not possess the same legal rights upon separation as married couples.

The law does not recognise “common law spouses,” an area many consider ripe for reform due to perceived unfairness.

Interestingly, Kyle Walker and Lauren Goodman were not cohabitees, despite this, they had two children together and so a case could be brought by Miss Goodman for financial provision for her and her children, pursuant to Schedule 1 Children Act 1989.

Child Maintenance and Financial Provision

Most unmarried parents seeking financial provision for their child or children turn to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), which handles maintenance cases where the non-resident parent earns less than £156,000 gross annually.

In wealthier cases, parents can apply to the court under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for additional financial provisions for their child, such as:

1. Top-up maintenance (if a maximum maintenance assessment has been made by the CMS).
2. Payment of school fees.
3. Monetary lump sums.
4. A “carer’s allowance” for childcare costs, transportation, etc.
5. The purchase or transfer of a property, which reverts to the parent who funded it once the child no longer needs it (e.g., after completing education).

Kyle Walker earns between £7,000,000 – £10,000,000 per annum or £3,000,000 – £5,000,000, net, hence the appropriate claim being made against him pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

The court can also order periodical payments and lump sums for children over 18 in full-time education or with special needs. The size of the award considers the non-resident parent’s resources and the child’s standard of living.

Financial Disclosures and Court Discretion

Parents must fully disclose their financial status, enabling the court to decide on appropriate financial provision. The court considers the following factors :

• The financial resources and needs of both parents and the child.
• The child’s earning capacity and financial resources.
• Any physical or mental disabilities of the child.
• The child’s education or training.

Reluctance to Pursue Schedule 1 Claims

Limited resources can deter Schedule 1 claims due to potential cost liabilities. Unlike other Children Act 1989 applications, Schedule 1 proceedings may result in an order to pay the other party’s costs, underscoring the need for specialist advice at the separation’s outset.

They are also rare – as not many people earn more than £156,000 per annum…

Linked Claims and Legal Costs

Schedule 1 claims often intersect with Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TLATA) claims (for cohabitees) requiring careful procedural and cost considerations.

Goodman v. Walker Case Insights

Lauryn Goodman v. Kyle Walker offers practical insights into Schedule 1 CA 1989’s application with some eye watering facts :

• Housing and Property: Mr Walker was ordered to purchase a property for Miss Goodman and their children, initially capped at £1,850,000 but later increased to £2,400,000 due to additional requirements. The property reverts to Mr Walker once the children finish their education. The court upheld a ‘protected housing budget’ clause, ensuring financial prudence.
• The mother is responsible for internal routine maintenance and decorative upkeep, while the father covers structural repairs, external maintenance, and non-cosmetic internal repairs.
• If the mother relocates outside a 60-mile radius of a specific town in Sussex, the housing budget is reduced to £1,350,000.
• Child’s Property Interest and Savings: Kairo, the child, has a 10% interest in the property to be made available at age 25. Mr Walker also agreed to pay £73,000 into savings and premium bonds for Kairo, although this was voluntary and not imposed by the court.
• Child Periodical Payments: The father was ordered to pay £8,000 per month for child support, adjusted annually for inflation, currently at £9,188 per month. Additional voluntary payments have also been made by Walker.
• Lump Sum Payments:
• A lump sum of £40,840 to cover the mother’s debts.
• A £75,000 furniture fund to furnish the new home.
• Agreed renovations including built-in wardrobes, new flooring, a media wall, bathroom updates, radiator installations, and more, with quotes to be mutually agreed upon.
• Mr Walker has paid £48,000 towards the installation of wardrobes, £52,164 for blinds and curtains, £9,115 for CCTV cameras, and £5,651 for a burglar alarm at the Sussex home.
• Mother’s Car Provision: The mother retains her Mercedes GLE, with Mr Walker required to replace it every four years with a car valued up to £45,000, with CPI adjustments increasing this to approximately £51,000 by March 2025.
• Educational Expenses: Mr Walker covers all nursery and school fees for Kairo, with payments made as they become due, although there have been allegations of late payments.
• Additional Child Periodical Payments: For childcare costs, Mr Walker was ordered to pay £1,386 per month until August 2025 and £1,040 per month until September 2031, reflecting adjustments from a prior appeal decision.
• Legal Costs Miss Goodman’s legal costs totaled £259,298, mostly paid by Mr Walker, who also incurred his own costs of £171,440. The court emphasised transparency and permitted the publication of most case details bearing in mind Miss Goodman`s children attended Euro 2024 in Germany with shirts with No 2 , Daddy, emblazoned on the backs.

Interesting Trial Quotes

• Judge Edward Hess on the Mother’s Financial Demands: “The mother showed a remarkable lack of insight in relation to her own spending. She generally found it very difficult to give a straight answer, she argued with counsel, and in my judgment, sought wherever possible to argue her case rather than give simple, straightforward answers.”
• On Air Conditioning & Astroturf : “I was not persuaded that this demand by the mother was either necessary or reasonable. As the father said, on the fairly small number of days in England when it is very hot, any discomfort can usually be dealt with by closing blinds/curtains and deploying a modestly-priced electric fan.” £31,200 for the installation of astroturf was also deemed unnecessary with the Judge rejecting the Mother`s claim that their daughter, not yet walking, kicking a ball from a crawling position meant that she would go on to be a “lioness”. The Judge considered this an unjustified evidential leap.
• On Transparency: “It would be a nonsense, opening the court to ridicule, to try to redact or anonymise this judgment to prevent identification of the parties… If the children suffer any harm from the publicity of these matters, it has already happened, and it will largely be the result of the mother’s own decisions and actions.
• On Mother`s reliability (in both final hearings) “Having listened carefully to the Mother’s evidence, I regret to say that I found her evidence wanting in several respects.”
• “She generally found it very difficult to give a straight answer, she argued with counsel, asked questions back and, in my judgment, sought wherever possible to argue her case rather than give simple, straightforward answers.”
• “The Mother showed a remarkable lack of insight in relation to her own spending.”
• The Mother has a conviction for benefit fraud relating to misappropriate of £21,000… She said to counsel ‘I find it upsetting you’re using this [her conviction]’.

Conclusion

Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 is crucial for ensuring financial stability for children from non-marital relationships or even those who have children with one another who aren`t in a relationship.

The Mother is also entitled to receive reasonable financial provision as the child or children`s carer but eventually that will come to an end upon adulthood.

If you require advice or guidance on any family law matter, please contact our expert Family law Solicitors for a free no obligation discussion about your case.