Pump Court Chambers

A Question of Sport: What a professional footballer can teach us about unmarried couples

News, Blog 22nd October 2024

A discussion of Goodman v Walker [2024] EWFC 212 (B) and orders for financial relief against parents where the Mother and Father are not married. 

A background

Kyle Walker, who plays for Manchester City and the England team, has been the subject of a significant amount of press attention due to an un-anonymised judgment between him and his former mistress Lauryn Goodman. During his relationship with his now wife, Mr Walker fathered a child with Ms Goodman in 2020 who subsequently issued court proceedings to guarantee that Mr Walker provide for the child. In 2023, after the conclusion of those legal proceedings, Ms Goodman gave birth to another child of Mr Walker and sought further financial support under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. In what I will refer to as the 2024 proceedings, Ms Goodman managed to secure additional funding for the second child. However, clear lines were drawn by HHJ Hess in terms of what were reasonable asks – even of a professional athlete.

Children Act 1989, Schedule 1

Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 provides for situations, not necessarily as complex as Mr Walker’s, where a Mother and Father are not and have never been married. Schedule 1 is rare in that it is a remedy available to unmarried parents. Ultimately, it operates on a needs basis – allowing the former partner to have access to some financial support as they raise the child. However, where one of the parents has a gross income of more than £156,000, the applicant parent can make a Schedule 1 claim for top-up maintenance.

Effectively, this allows the less financially secure parent (who is raising the children resulting from the union) a level of support that is more equitable in law. In the recent case of Y v Z [2024] EWFC 4, the respondent was Middle Eastern royalty, and the judgment reflected this. The final award included a $600k capital lump sum, child periodical payments of $250k per year, and $5m for housing. Evidently, the respondent’s income exceeded the £156,000 cap and the applicant’s Schedule 1 claim succeeded.

2022 Proceedings

It will be unsurprising to most that a professional footballer of Mr Walker’s level certainly met this threshold, and indeed Ms Goodman requested top-up maintenance for the first child in the 2022 proceedings. As summarised by HHJ Hess, Ms Goodman’s provision included, and was not limited to, the following:

  1. Mr Walker was ordered to purchase a property for Ms Goodman and their child up to a value of £1,850,000 within a specific geographic location. (Should she elect to live elsewhere, a lower figure would be available due to the relative expense of the area.) Once the child had ceased education up to his first degree, or if Ms Goodman cohabited or married someone else, then this property will revert to Mr Walker.
  2. The child would have a 10% interest in the property, made available to him from the age of 25. Further, Mr Walker would pay £73,000 into savings and premium bonds. (These were volunteered by Mr Walker and could not have been imposed on him pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act.)
  3. Mr Walker should pay child periodical payments at £8,000 pcm with CPI increases.
  4. Mr Walker should pay a lump sum of £40,840 to offset some of Ms Goodman’s debts.
  5. Mr Walker was to pay a lump sum of £75,000 to be put toward furnishing Ms Goodman’s new home.
  6. Mr Walker will pay for renovation, decoration and improvements to the property agreed on in advance.
  7. Ms Goodman would retain her Mercedes GLE car and Mr Walker would provide a replacement car every 4 years up to a value of £45,000.
  8. Mr Walker would pay all nursery and school fees once these became due.
  9. Mr Walker would pay additional child periodical payments to cover the cost of child-care at £1,386 pcm until August 2024, and then £1,040 pcm until September 2031.
  10. Mr Walker would pay Ms Goodman’s legal costs.
  11. Mr Goodman would also pay life insurance to cover these financial obligations under the terms of the order.

2024 Proceedings

In the 2024 proceedings, relating to the second child, HHJ Hess was quick to note that this order had been adhered to and Mr Walker had purchased a house in the realm of £2,400,000. HHJ Hess further acknowledged the amount of money spent on Ms Goodman throughout the course of the new 2024 proceedings, including £245,000 towards legal costs and payments of £30,000 for the capital needs of the new baby. Further, he had been paying £7,000pcm in interim child periodical payments (in addition to the £8,000 already being received for the first child.)

Prior to the final order, Mr Walker and Ms Goodman had agreed upon amending the original periodical payments to include the younger child’s education to degree level. Further, the motor car provision, nursery and school fees, life insurance, and periodical payments would all apply to the younger child and come to an end upon completion of her first degree. Despite these agreed upon provisions for the second child, Ms Goodman still sought further financial relief from Mr Walker.

Ultimately, HHJ Hess was sympathetic to Mr Walker and was not persuaded in full by Ms Goodman’s arguments as to her necessary income and desire for air-conditioning and astroturf. However, the judgment did afford Ms Goodman additional support for the second child including, but not limited to:

  1. A further furniture fund lump sum of £5,000 (following the £75,000 ordered in the 2022 proceedings);
  2. £12,000 for an appropriate nanny car;
  3. A commitment from Mr Walker to pay the nursery and school fees – a trust fund was not necessary as the court was not convinced Ms Goodman would manage this appropriately;
  4. £12,500 pcm in child maintenance.

Conclusion

As set out by HHJ Hess in his judgment: “it is certainly not the role of the Financial Remedies Court to make moral judgments on what has happened or in any way to seek to punish or condemn any perceived human frailties or lack of wisdom.” However, one could argue that the gaps in law for unmarried cohabitants are themselves a moral judgement. Though the money here may seem foreign to many of us, and indeed I am minded to agree with HHJ Hess regarding the necessity of air-conditioning and astroturf, this case is illustrative of the inequity of the law for unmarried mothers and fathers. Traditional though it may seem, the lesson is that marriage before children may be the most sensible strategy.

Some might argue that HHJ Hess placed weight on the fact that ‘the parties had never been in a cohabiting relationship,” but Family Lawyers will be all too keen to tell you that cohabiting unmarried couples are a grey area in the law. There is no provision in Schedule 1 for analysing the commitment to the relationship. Had Mr Walker indeed left his wife for Ms Goodman, and chosen to reside with her and raise the two children, Ms Goodman’s children would still only have Schedule 1 open to them as a legal remedy.

Should Mr Walker and his current wife divorce, as is currently being speculated upon by the tabloids, parallels may well be drawn between the remedies available to a former spouse as opposed to an unmarried romantic partner. Leaving the longevity and emotional investment aside, both Lauryn Goodman and Annie Kilner have had children with Mr Walker – and yet (by virtue of their mother’s marriage alone) his children with Mrs Walker will inevitably get the better deal.

 

Hannah Tickle

Pupil Barrister

 

Nothing in this blog post is intended to provide legal advice or assistance. All cases turn on their facts, and none of the above is intended to be a substitute for formal legal advice.

Home
Shortlist close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to email this list.