Footballers, Fortunes and Fouls: Schedule 1 Children Act 1989

Anyone keeping up with gossip columns during Euros 2024 cannot fail to have missed the off-pitch drama surrounding Man City and England player Kyle Walker and the mother of two of his six children, Lauryn Goodman.? For the uninitiated, Walker had three children with his then long-term partner Annie Kilner before fathering a child with reality star Lauryn Goodman.? He later secretly fathered a second child with Goodman, before marrying Annie and having his fourth child with her.? Following the births of her children, Goodman pursued Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 claims against Walker for financial support.? Judgment in respect of her application for further support for their second child was published yesterday: Goodman v Walker [2024] EWFC 212 (B) and Goodman found herself offside on a number of fronts.

Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 enables a parent to pursue further and better financial support than is available under the Child Maintenance Service provisions.? It is most commonly used by non-married parents and can only most realistically be pursued against a ‘wealthy’ parent for provision of support during the child’s minority.? The Child Maintenance Service only assesses parents to pay child maintenance up to an income limit of ￡3,000 gross pw.? Walker was reported in the judgment to have an income of ￡7m - ￡10m gross pa.? He was also reported to have gross capital of ￡26.7m.? By contrast, Goodman did not have a steady source of income (and two young children to care for), and capital in her own right of just ￡10,000.?

Any claim under Schedule 1 is strictly for the benefit of the children to meet their needs.? It is not, and the court will not use it as, ‘spousal maintenance’ for unmarried parents.? It is also important to note that the financial provision falls away as each relevant child reaches majority.? The parent with care, therefore, can be left in a financially difficult position as the children reach majority, but that is not a state of affairs for which the court will compensate.? It is noted in the judgment that Goodman may have felt some angst that her relationship with Walker did not progress in the way that she might have hoped.

During proceedings concerning their first child, Walker agreed to provide ￡1.85m as a housing fund for Goodman and their child.? What only Walker and Goodman knew at the time was that a second child had been conceived.? Faced with the public embarrassment seemingly threatened by Goodman, Walker increased the housing budget to ￡2.4m.? Additional provision had already been agreed for the benefit of their first child to include the child having a 10% interest in trust of the property; child periodical payments of ￡8,000 pcm; a furniture fund of ￡75,000; a ￡45,000 car every four years for Goodman; all nursery and child care fees; additional child care costs of ￡1,386 until 2025 then reduced slightly until 2031; and life insurance against Walker to cover the financial Order.

Immediately after the birth of her second child, Goodman applied back to court for enhanced financial support, an application which in principle was sensible as needs were now greater.? It was noted that Walker had paid generously in the interim beyond some of that originally ordered for the first child.? It was not in contention between them that the term of occupation for housing, provision of a vehicle, education fees and life insurance should be extended to cover the period until the majority of the second child – these were inherent in what was most obviously needed.? What was in dispute had, in part, some more questionable elements, with Walker complaining that he felt he was being treated like an open-ended cheque book.

Amongst the unsuccessful elements of her claims, Goodman sought that a clause that would trigger review of occupation upon her cohabitation be removed (she was denied). Goodman sought air conditioning be installed at a cost of ￡33,000 because her property was substantially glazed (she was denied).? Goodman sought a sum of ￡31,200 for the installation of an astroturf football playing area in her garden. Interestingly, this particular demand was justified by Goodman claiming that their daughter, not yet walking, kicked a ball with her left foot from a crawling position suggesting a future career as a ‘Lioness’ footballer.? Despite this precocious talent, Goodman was denied.? A request for ￡20,000 for a further furnishing fund was reduced by the judge to ￡5,000.? An increased car allowance to enable her to buy (only) Mercedes GLEs for ￡70,000 was denied. A claim for a car for the nanny of ￡30,000 was reduced to ￡12,000.? A global claim for child periodical payments of ￡14,750 pcm plus CPI inflation was denied and a lower sum of ￡12,500 pcm plus CPI inflation (already offered by Walker) was directed.

Whilst the sums payable here are larger because of Walker’s considerable footballing talents and earning potential, he is also now 34 and it is reasonable to wonder whether he will be able to sustain payments such as the above for the entirety of the children’s minority.? This not least because he has a wife and four other children to financially maintain.? Mechanisms are built into financial arrangements of this type to enable a reversion to court by the payer if circumstances change in the future and it can be demonstrated that payment rates cannot be sustained. Likewise, recipients can revert if there is an evidenced need for increase. There is also, as the judge demonstrated, a requirement to objectively determine what is reasonably needed, whatever the size of resources.?

What has also been demonstrated by the publicity surrounding Goodman's applications is the volume of private information that can make its way into the public domain.? Arguments by journalists for transparency were heard during the course of proceedings and were, save for redaction of some particularly private information, successful. ?As the judge commented: “For me, 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.”? There are a number of out of court dispute resolution methods that offer confidentiality to all clients, whatever their budget.? There are many reasons why cases end up in court, but the very public airing of laundry here should offer a cautionary tale to even the most determined litigant.?

Georgina Rayment

30 July 2024