Lauryn Goodman V Kyle Walker – A Look at the Recent High-Profile Case Involving Financial Provision for Children

This case recently concluded in the Central Family Court before His Honour Judge Hess – the Lead Judge of the London Financial Remedies Unit at the Central Family Court. It involved Miss Goodman’s financial claims arising from the birth of two children with Mr Walker. Let’s consider this fascinating case.

The Law

These applications must be distinguished from divorce proceedings; Miss Goodman and Mr Walker are not and have never been married. Indeed, Mr Walker is married to his wife with whom he has four children. Miss Goodman was tied to making financial claims for child maintenance or lump sum payments for specific capital assets relating to the children. Such applications are made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

News articles have reported lavish sums being sought by Miss Goodman which appear out of kilter with what many people would deem reasonable. However, this is somewhat unfair on Miss Goodman; case law sets out that the child “is entitled to be brought up in circumstances which bore some sort of relationship to the father’s current resources and the father’s present standard of living”. The specifics as to Miss Goodman and Mr Walker’s previous relationship and the highly publicised circumstances as to the birth of the children is pretty much irrelevant. Therefore, the test of what is reasonable is entirely subjective and given Mr Walker’s wealth (identified at £26.7m) and income (identified at £7m – £10m pa gross), it is clear this was always going to be a ‘big money’ case.

More simply, Miss Goodman’s two children with Mr Walker are entitled to be raised in similar circumstances to that which Mr Walker’s four children though his marriage enjoy.

The Judge must consider the following: “in deciding what provision to make, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the income, earning capacity, resources and needs of the parents and the relevant child together with any physical or mental disabilities of the child”.

An award can extend beyond the direct expenses of the child; these are known as Household Expenditure Child Support Awards (HECSA). Here, the award can additionally meet the expenses of the mother’s household to the extent that she cannot cover, or contribute to, those expenses from her own means. However, and it is here where Miss Goodman fell down in many respects, the HECSA cannot meet those expenses of the mother which are directly personal to her and have no reference to her role as carer of the child.

Background

It is important to note that these proceedings were the second set of proceedings between Miss Goodman and Mr Walker. The Court had already made a Final Order concerning Miss Goodman’s eldest child with Mr Walker. These proceedings commenced in June 2020 and concluding by way of a Final Order after a trial in November 2022. The financial provision to be provided to Miss Goodman for the benefit of the eldest child included:

1. A £1.85m property (to revert back to Mr Walker when the child concluded tertiary level education). Mr Walker subsequently voluntarily purchased a £2.4m property.
2. Child maintenance payments of £96,000 per annum to be paid £8,000 per month.
3. Pay for all nursery and school fees.
4. Payments for a nanny of c£1,300 per month.
5. Payments to purchase a vehicle, meet a furniture fund and repairs / decorations to the property, and to discharge liabilities and legal fees.

Recorder Chandler KC, who heard evidence from both parties in 2022, was quite scathing of Miss Goodman’s evidence and complimentary of Mr Walker’s evidence and general conduct. The Judge stated “While it may serve the Mother’s purpose to see herself as the victim in this case, I cannot see any proper basis for suggesting that the Father has sought to ‘punish’ the Mother or deny her proper financial support. In my judgment, this is a fantasy on the Mother’s part which enables her to avoid responsibility for her actions which amount to spending money as if it was going out of fashion…I also bear in mind that the Mother does not have a good track record when it comes to telling the truth. The Mother has a conviction for benefit fraud relating to misappropriate of £21,000”.

The second set of proceedings commenced in June 2023 (two days after the birth of the youngest child) concluding in late July 2024. Miss Goodman sought additional financial provision be provided to her for the benefit of the now two children. Essentially, the majority of the orders sought by Miss Goodman concerned an increase of the financial provision provided for in the 2022 Order.

Order made / not made

Either through agreement during the proceedings or by way of the HHJ Hess’ judgement, the award made includes:

1. The duration of the terms of the 2022 Order were lengthened to include the youngest child.
2. Global (or total) child maintenance payments of £150,000 per annum payable £12,500 per month. Payments to decrease by 35% when the eldest child drops out.
3. Payments for capital costs of the baby, a maternity nanny, and a vehicle for the nanny.
4. Payments to meet a further furniture fund and for the installation of CCTV, a burglar alarm, wardrobes, blinds, and curtains at the property, the discharge of legal fees and payment of some arrears.

Miss Goodman was refused:

1. Installation of an astro-turf pitch, air-conditioning unit and further remodelling at the property.
2. The removal of a cohabitation clause.
3. A capital fund to meet nursery and school fees to be managed by both parties.
4. A more expensive vehicle.
5. The right to solely direct any spending up to £3,000 on a management fund for the property.
6. A 59 item list of snagging issues at the property.

HHJ Hess’ comments concerning Miss Goodman and Mr Walker’s evidence echoed the previous Judge. He stated: “In my view the father’s presentation before me was sensible, honest and reliable…. In contrast, my assessment of the mother is that she was not reliable, often said what she thought would help her case rather than what was true, failed to make a calm and measured assessment of what she needed and often exaggerated her need to spend money (I think the father was correct to observe that the mother was in many ways treating him as an open-ended cheque book). She was unable to give any credit to the father for the reliable and generous financial support he has in fact given her and was happy to take every point against him.”

Transparency

What significantly differentiates this case from others in the family court is that the judgment has been published in full by HHJ Hess. There are calls for more transparency in the family court and for judgments to be more widely published and permitted to be shared by the media. This must be balanced against one’s right to privacy particularly in children proceedings – it can be a delicate balancing act. Information not to be disclosed as part of a transparency order would include addresses, bank details, and photographs of the children. Generally, it would also not include naming the children. However, the Judge noted the names of Mr Walker’s four children through his marriage and Miss Goodman’s two children are all widely available online.

The Central Family Court is part of a pilot scheme relating to transparency and specific media outlets had sought a transparency order to enable them to disclose details of the proceedings. Interestingly, Mr Walker supported the application for a transparency order whereas Miss Goodman opposed; the reasoning for this is quite clear.

As part of his determination, the Judge was again quite scathing of the mother. He commented:

“It sits ill for a person to come to court arguing for privacy for her children when, just a very short while earlier, she took a payment from the press to visit the European football championship with her son dressed in an England football shirt with the name ‘Daddy’ on the back, and to be willingly photographed doing this to provide journalistic fodder which the newspapers were only too happy to use”.

“I also consider it very likely, having heard her evidence, that the mother will be tempted, one way or another and whatever any transparency order says, to seek defiantly to put in the public domain her views about the court’s findings and also further views she may have about the father.”

HHJ Hess published the judgment in full and made a final transparency order. The point to take is that caution must be taken by parents particularly for those who hold a high profile; the judgement serves as a warning that the family courts are no longer a closed set of doors and that a parent cannot litigate without the risk of highly personal and sensitive details being widely publicised afterwards.

Rayden Solicitors are specialist family lawyers and can advise on all aspects of family law, including financial provision for children. Please do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your situation in confidence.