Why Did Lauryn Goodman Take Kyle Walker to Court? 

Lisa Pepper

Introduction to the case

After a judge took the unusual step of making his judgement public, we’re starting to hear more about Kyle Walker’s recent court battle with his former partner, Lauryn Goodman.

The high-profile Premier League footballer, who is married with four children, has two children with Goodman. The two-day Financial Remedy proceedings related to their youngest child, daughter Kinara.

Walker and Goodman never married. When their daughter was born, Goodman made an application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for financial provision on behalf of Kinara. The claim involved a number of extraordinary demands on the sportsman, including a £2.4 million home, £33,000 air conditioning unit and an astro turf football pitch costing £31,000.

Ruling in favour of Walker, Judge Edward Hess called Goodman out for “spending money as if it was going out of fashion” and treating the footballer as an “open-ended cheque book.” While this ruling may seem like a victory for common sense, it raises some important issues regarding child maintenance and the responsibilities of unmarried parents.

It’s also quite rare for a judgement like this to be publicly reported upon. Family law proceedings are typically kept confidential, and the court’s push for transparency may influence how high-profile and high-net-worth divorce cases are reported in the future.

• Also read: International footballer fails to comply with financial disclosure

Claim to ensure child’s needs are met

The purpose of Schedule One of the Children Act 1989 is to ensure that a child’s needs are met and they don’t end up with a lower standard of living, just because their parents have split up.

It provides an avenue for a parent to seek financial provision from the other parent, and is most commonly used when the parents are unmarried.

The Court can make a number of orders to ensure that a child’s needs are met, including:

• Periodical Payments Order – Regular payments for child maintenance.
• Lump Sum Order – One-time payments for specific, child-related expenses such as school fees.
• Property Adjustment Order – Transfer of ownership in the family home to the resident parent so the child has a roof over their head.

Unlike financial settlements in a divorce, Schedule One claims can only relate to the needs of the children. There is no order for spousal maintenance, and the needs of the parent with care are not considered. However, the parent claiming relief can apply for the Household Expenditure Child Support Award (HECSA). These are household expenses connected to the role of carer that the resident parent cannot meet from their own resources. Often, they extend beyond direct expenses for the children.

You would expect to see transport, utility bills, clothing, leisure and holidays forming part of this provision, for example. This can sometimes blur the lines between HECSA and a spousal maintenance claim.

• Also read:
• What is Co-Parenting and is it right for us?
• Co-parenting with a narcissist

Why did Goodman take Walker to court?

Goodman, who describes herself as an influencer, has no formal paid employment, a minority share in her mother’s house, and significant debts.

Walker sits at the other end of the wealth spectrum. His net worth is estimated at £26.7 million, and his income is around £3.5 million – £5 million net per year.

The couple have already been in proceedings regarding their oldest child, Kairo. As a result of those proceedings, Goodman received (among other things) a £1.85 million property within a 60-mile radius of Sussex on condition that the property would revert back to Walker when Kairo finished his tertiary education, or when Goodman remarried or began living with another partner, whichever came first.

What did Kyle Walker do?

Walker voluntarily increased this housing fund to £2.4 million. Goodman agreed that if she wanted to move outside the 60-mile radius, the housing fund would reduce to £1.35 million, rising in line with inflation.

Kinara was born in June 2023, shortly after the conclusion of the proceedings regarding Kairo. Goodman immediately sought extra financial support for Kinara which included adjustments to the arrangements put in place for Kairo.

Among the claims, Goodman asked that the £1.35 million housing cap and the cohabitation trigger be removed. She also requested a £33,000 air conditioning unit, hot tub maintenance at £500 per month, a new Mercedes GLE every three years, totalling £70,000, £350,000 per year on childcare and £120,000 to spend on wardrobes, sofas, soft furnishings and garden furniture for her home.

Walker opposed some of these demands entirely or asked that the figures be decreased.

What did the Judge say?

The Judge found Walker to have taken a fair and generous stance—he had, after all, paid more than provided under the previous order for Kairo. Ultimately, the Judge found it in Walker’s favour. Goodman will receive some of the expenses she asked for, but typically at a far lower level.

Other expenses were denied altogether. HECSA is intended to cover care-related expenses for the benefit of the child, not to support the lifestyle of the primary carer. Therefore, expenses for a car were included but astroturf and air conditioning were not.

The judgement speaks for itself in laying bare Goodman’s pursuit of money. In the Judge’s view, Goodman should have accepted Walker’s offer months ago, eliminating the need for court proceedings and stress to all involved.

Takeaways from Walker-Goodman Court decision

When claiming Schedule One, it’s important to take a reasonable approach from the outset. Requests for expenses must be for the legitimate benefit of the child, and not presented as a wish list of luxuries for the primary carer.

The judge also took the unusual step of waiving anonymity in this case. He did so on the basis that trying to prevent the parties from being recognised when their children’s names had already been widely publicised—largely due to Goodman’s own actions—would have opened the court to ridicule.

Press were allowed to attend the hearing under the court’s new “transparency” pilot. Going forward, it’s likely that the press and the public will be afforded greater rights to see what happens in the family court and have fewer restrictions on what they can report. Those rights might outweigh a high-profile person’s desire for privacy.

For couples in this situation, it’s more important than ever to deal with financial settlements amicably. Exhausting all non-court options such as mediation before issuing a court application may be the best way of keeping your personal business away from the public eye.

Sarah Norman-Scott comments:

‘The key takeaways for me are

1. If you want your private business to remain private, then consider all other avenues rather than litigation (especially because the sheer volume of press coverage must be difficult reading for Walker’s wife, Annie Kilner.
2. If you are the one seeking the financial provision, take a reasonable stance because seeming greedy could be ‘an own goal’ and
3. The amount of financial provision is directly linked to the payer’s affordability – so this outcome is purely as a result of Walker’s significant wealth but it is still a small proportion of his overall wealth’.

How we can help

We understand that the process of separating your financial lives may not always go as you expect. Seeking legal advice from an experienced divorce lawyer can help you understand your rights, protect your assets and achieve a fair settlement. To speak with our team, please:

• Call 020 7485 8811, or
• Complete the form below.